42 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Haven't we all, at one time or another, questioned
the decision of some judge? Don't we sometimes feel that there has been some shift of powers when it comes to controversial matters and court decisions? From what I read, Newt is asking that any such decision by some judge be subject to review by congress and that he would invoke some presidential authority make that happen if a judge would not cooperate by offering a full explanation of his/her decision. Of course the press will want to embellish the story by creating an image of some person being handcuffed and dragged away. It makes for more knee-jerk emotion and less sensibility to rise from its readership. Unfortunately, I cannot find the full context of Mr. Gingrich's speech or interview when suggesting this thought. He should be allowed to explain just as he's suggesting that explanations should be required of judges.
He's right about one thing
Judges don't make laws...they interpret laws, and hand out the punishment.
If the lawmakers don't word the laws the way the "deciders/Judges" interpret them...then re-word the laws so they say what they want them to mean.
If they make a judgement you don't agree with, you'll disregard it.
If you say they Judges have NO place in the 3 Branches of Government...don't you only have 2 Branches of government.
After watching those, what I've come away with
as the most important part is that he, if elected, would not be able to accomplish his plans alone. He would need continued support from the people. IMO, this is one fundamental principle that the American people seem to have lost. We elect officials and expect to be able to go about our own business with no further effort. All will be hunky-dory if we just put this person or this party into office. When such fails, we blame it on the ones elected. We should be blaming this on ourselves and our own laziness.
I was impressed by Mr. Gingrich's presentation and agree that lawyers, courts and those who have caved into playing their game are largely at the root of our problems. We should not be ruled by the courts.
I wouldn't want to bet money on his chances of being elected president, however. His biggest adversary will not be the opposition party but those who control what information is delivered to the public. Their power is overwhelming.
For a long time
we've needed Congress to void some Supreme Court decisions. There has to be some way to make them more accountable without needing to turn the Supreme Court positions into an electoral contest. If the Supreme Court can void some Congressional Laws, then Congress should be able to void some Supreme Court decisions to some degree. It's this "Precedent Rule" that interferes, where later rulings are based on "precedent" instead of each case standing on it's own merits and not subjected to "precedent" so strongly. Why should rulings of an earlier court be the standard and constriction a later court must base it's decisions on due to "precendent"? Was the earlier court better than the latter? Does the earlier court have some greater right than the ones which came after? They need to rework that.
As for balance of power, if a Supreme Court rules against a Presidential power, then certainly Congress should be able to void such ruling if they disagree with it. There needs to be some way of not destroying the Supreme Court, but also making them less removed from The People.
But wouldn't that
lead to anarchy and a dictator like state?
The whole point of Supreme Courts is to interpret the law. If Government ignores that then wouldn't it lead to even more problems?
Precedents are an accepted way of interpreting the law and have been for as long as laws have been set. If governments disagree with such decisions they should then amend the law itself, not remove the decision.
All courts should be independent of government and especially so Supreme Court judges. Politically elected judges cause inconsistencies and should be avoided at all costs.
That may be why we try to have a policy of
"No decision is ever final"...other than that of a 9mm to the right temple.
How to guard against
an oligarchy run by the judges?
The answer is easy.
Write simple laws that can never be misconstrued, misunderstood, or misinterpreted.
That way there's no need for higher courts.
impeachment, constitutional amendments, wouldn't these for a beginning help prevent your judicial oligarchy?
Judges interprete the laws
Supreme Court Judges compare the laws against the Constitution to see if they are constitutional. State Supreme Court Judges compare the state laws against the state constitutions while Federal Judges compare the state consititutions and laws against the Federal consitution.
Many times the various supreme courts have struck down laws as being unconstitutional and the legislators and congress have gone back and re-written the laws or revised the constitution.
Of course there's always the regulators that write the regulations based on the laws which sometimes sends the legislators or congress back to the table as well.
What's the old saying - You don't want to watch how laws and sausage are made.
If you agree to ignore all precedent, every case will be up for appeal eventually it would seem.
We never intended it to be a completely homogenized legal system. Different laws in different states was quite the understanding for many years.
Hard to do business if radically
different and your business is spread across several states.
and see what a state we are in!
27 different nations, all with our own agendas and home laws, but all legally bound by European law at the same time. Conflict is inevitable and a common occurrence.
It's a mess.
Try to rationalize it all you want
Sounds to me like Newt doesn't understand what the three branches of government are all about and why things were set up that way by the founders. It also sounds like he thinks the president has (or should have) absolute power, which thankfully he does not.
If he wants to be Dictator, I'm sure there are a lot of countries that would welcome him.
Could I ask that, when you said
"Sounds to me like Newt doesn't understand what the three branches of government are all about..., was your reaction based on the link in the OP or did you take the opportunity to view the videos that Tony supplied? I have to confess that I'd not taken the time to listen to Newt actually speak in other than some news sound bite or in , what he termed "game show" style debate. I thought he was quite eloquent when speaking on his own terms and certainly has a better grasp of the history of our government than I do. Maybe you think your understanding is better.
I still have my doubts that he's electable or that, if he was, he'd not become a party puppet as most recent presidents have. I can agree with his suggestion that the foundation of our government has been allowed to erode and that patching the living areas as cracks appear is a dead end effort.
The story in the OP...
The story in the OP said "Gingrich has said that, as president, he would ignore U.S. Supreme Court decisions that conflicted with his powers as commander in chief. He said on 'Face the Nation' he would subpoena a judge if the jurist disagreed with him, and send police 'if you had to or you'd instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshall' if necessary to bring the judge in.".
He said no such thing. That story is a distortion of that interview. He talked about cases in history when a President ignored a court ruling.
Sending a U.S. Marshall referred to a Congressional subpoena in an impeachment . Congress has the power to subpoena and impeach a judge. In such a case if a subpoena was issued, the host said "What if he didn't come? What if he said, no thank you, I'm not coming? Gingrich had just said "If you had to or you'd instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshall. In the case of an impeachment, "you'd" obviously referred to the House of Representatives, because as Gingrich pointed out in an impeachment case, the House studies whether or not, the House brings them in, the House subpoenas them.
Well, you're right about the distortion but
Newt did say that as an aside. When asked by Bob Schieffer how he'd enforce such presidential power, he did mention a couple of possibilities but did not in the declarative sense that was suggested by the article in the OP.
>>>>He talked about cases in history when a President ignored a court ruling.
In that, BO has already done that with instructing ICE to ignore certain illegals and focus on others instead rather than have the law pertain to ALL equally.
Ok, I did watch your face the nation link
I almost gave up on it due to how the interview was prologued but the interviewer was, IMO, mostly fair. But if you take the time to watch the 22 minute presentation Mr. Gingrich made in Tony's link, you'll find that most of what was touched upon during the Face the Nation interview was also contained and even expanded upon in that speech. I must say that I fully agree with his notion about a "legal class" that has slowly taken over the country. I've expressed my concern here in SE many times about our government being dominated by those whose political careers saw them begin as lawyers. There won't be solid tort reform as long as our government remains so heavily populated by those whose livelihoods once (or might later) depend on such. The design of law will be to protect those who work within that system rather than to properly dispense justice.
Ok...sorry to digress. I did take the time view the link you provided. Maybe you'll consider some reciprocal act.
Sorry, didn't mean to cause confusion
I did click Tony's links; I just didn't base my response on them. I stand my belief that Newt doesn't fully appreciate what the balance of power between the branches of government is all about. I liked Schieffer's question about whether he thought Obama should push ahead with the health care plan if the Supreme Court rules it's not constitutional. Some people seem to think that the amount of power a president should have is directly related to how much you like/dislike that president.
I believe your last statement is a correct one
It's rare that anyone opposed to a president will listen without prejudice but will, instead, be formulating their objection before the first sentence can be completed. I'd not want to concede to Obama's health care bill as it would be too deeply woven into the fabric of the economy but I'd be willing to let him have at the wealthy so that folks could see and understand why that would not be good. At least it would be easy to undo.
I have never understood
the reasoning or why it was started behind appointing judges at the Federal level rather than elect them like they do on a local/state level and why they have the elitist status of being appointed for life when even the president that appointed them have a term limit. Why aren't they all, including the Supreme Court, elected and why don't they all have term limits? Seems to me that the normal rotation of elections by the people they represent and term limits would resolve most of the issues we run into with Federal judges making law rather than upholding the laws we have.
I don't think such elections are possible
Consider that national elections are really managed at state level and there's no direct election of anyone but representatives from the states. The mechanism isn't there to elect federal judges. While I could think the current process is flawed, I doubt that the general population could ever be brought up to speed as far as making informed judgeship decisions at that level. I know that we elect some judges at local levels that handle criminal cases but constitutional matters are a different animal and few among us really understand that species.
I think that tide has
been turning over the last year or two... >>>constitutional matters are a different animal and few among us really understand that species.
I think more people are making themselves aware of our constitution so a change in how we get Federal judges could change in the future as well. We would end up with far more lawyers arguing cases and using constitutional law in addition. Both of those scenarios could be a good thing.
One more thought
IMO, it would be imperative to keep politics completely out of the picture. I can't see this happening if such elections were to coincide with general ones. Those running need money and backing. I cannot imagine how such could be done without tainting the process. Perhaps a first approach might come from looking at the nomination process. I can't see why the president should be the only one who can put forth names for federal positions but that responsibility and authority is written into the constitution. As such, these can be political positions. I know that lifetime appointments means overlap should bring about some balance, I don't like that politics exists at all for these positions. One reason is that it almost assures that only the two majority parties will have an opportunity to install federal judges. I don't like that as judges, by nature, should be independent and not beholding for their jobs.
Pravilno i az smqtam taka
According to Google Translate
Pravilno i az smqtam taka translates from Bulgarian into;
"And I think correctly so".
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)