UA-9726592-1
Showing posts with label federal judges. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal judges. Show all posts

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Driftglass: The thoughts of Chairman Gingrich

Dear leader Gingrich has all of the solutions for what ails America

Let's start by putting disagreeable judges in jail and impeaching them. 

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA  

Creative Commons License
Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Gingrich panders the flag and cross humpers


In the last Fox News debate, The Newtster went off on federal judges. Newt has been obsessed with two cases. In one the judge rule made the Pledge of Allegiance optional. The second was about prayer in commencements. In that case, the Supreme Court overruled the Federal District court judge and allowed prayer. 

So here we go again. The nation is finally coming out of a huge recession and half of Americans are in poverty or poor. The Newster brings up symbolic issues about prayer and the pledge.

Oh, just gag me with a spoon!

The descent of the Newster into irrelevancy isn't helping him

Newt said on on CBS's "Face the Nation, Newt to Bob Scheiffer.

"If you had to . . .you would instruct the Justice Department to send the U.S. Marshal." However, Newt would prefer to to impeach the judge whose ruling he disagreed with.

Of course, the justice department works for the president, not the congress. Undoubtedly, if a president took such an action, a constitutional crises would occur that the Supremes would weigh in on.

The Founders gave us constitutional government with separation of powers for a reason. What Newt is really proposing is an expansion of executive branch powers that would allow president to apprehend a judge prior to impeachment.

President's should not apprehend and arrest judges because they don't like their judicial rulings. The basis for impeachment is judicial misconduct, not an unpopular judicial ruling.

Newt has made criticism of the judiciary a rallying point a Cause Célèbre for many years.He wants to close the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and also fire U.S. District Judge Fred Biery in San Antonio.

"You have an increasingly arrogant judiciary," he said on "Face the Nation." This is a recurring conservative theme that Democrats are elitist and Republicans are not. Of course, most Americans know the GOP is he party of the 1 per cent that has been protecting "the Bush tax cuts." 

That statement doesn't imply that there aren't elites in the Democratic party. There are. The Democrats simply aren't the affluent leg huggers the GOP is.

Newt has a grudge against the Ninth Circuit court that ruled that it was unconstitutional for public schools to require the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. It made the pledge optional.

As a historian, Newt had to know that the pledge was developed by a flag salesman in the late 19th century. There are only two nations that have pledges today: the US and the Philippines. 

Friday, December 16, 2011

Think Politics: Gingrich's attack on federal judges


Uploaded by on Dec 15, 2011

Newt Gingrich said during a Fox News debate in Iowa tonight that judges whose rulings he doesn't agree with could be called before Congress to testify.

He then compared himself to four renown presidents — Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and FDR.

Newt suggested that his background in history was valuable because he was aware that the other branches could challenge and restructure the courts. He didn't mention one of the most famous cases, Marbury v. Madison, that stated the courts can declare a law unconstitutional.

Clearly, a president has no authority to call judges before congress. The pledge of allegiance is a a bogus issue because it is optional according to the courts. As a historian Gingrich know the "under God" in the pledge wasn't added until 1954.

Gingrich's activist judges comments seemed odd since the conservatives have a 5-4 majority on the Supreme court. Ron Paul also correctly pointed out that disbanding a court because of a particular ruling would lead to retaliation (by Democrats).

Gingrich was at his divisive best when he talked about the federal courts. His comments were even more unusual since Obama has been able to get less than 50 per cent of his nominations for federal judges through the senate.

The next election is important because more than half of the Supremes will be replaced. The Democrats will have an opportunity to change the 5-4 conservative majority if Obama wins.

source: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/15/390711/gingrich-compares-four-presidents/

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA  
Creative Commons License


Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Monday, December 12, 2011

Proof the GOP is not obstructionist




Rightardia is surprised the Obama administration has not been more aggressive about getting federal judges confirmed. The administration has been quiet about the confirmation process.

source: http://mediamatters.org/

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA  

Creative Commons License


Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.