Newt Gingrich wants to arrest federal judges if they make the wrong decisions

  • News
  • Thread starter Jack21222
  • Start date
In summary, Gingrich wants to arrest federal judges if they make the "wrong" decisions. He also believes that judges should be in touch with popular opinion, and that if they don't agree with what the public thinks, they should be removed from the bench. This is a dangerous idea that would give the president too much power.
  • #1
Jack21222
212
1
Newt Gingrich wants to arrest federal judges if they make the "wrong" decisions

From http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/gingrich-capitol-police-could-arrest-radical-judges.php [Broken]

Host Bob Schieffer asked Gingrich how he planned to enforce that. Would you call in the Capitol Police to apprehend a federal judge, he asked.

“If you had to,” Gingrich said. “Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send the U.S. Marshall in.”

This man is openly running as a tyrant. And he's the GOP frontrunner?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


At face value, I see nothing wrong with what he said (unless it is missing something). He's saying judges should explain rulings to Congress and if they refuse to do so that they should be brought there by force. What is wrong with that? Judges do answer to Congress according to the Constitution, but we have not been enforcing that.

I have a much bigger issue with him saying that judges need to pay more attention to popular opinion. IMO, that's exactly the problem we have right now: that they are ruling based more on popular opinion than what the Constitution requires in some cases.
 
  • #3


Agree with Russ
 
  • #4


He's pandering to some of the more vociferous elements of the right. Impeachment is for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Incompetence and having the wrong political views are not a part of the equation.

The original intent of the words "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" was to take politics out of the equation. I thought Gingrich was a strict constitutionalist. I guess that means he believes in following the original intent strictly when he agrees with that original intent. Otherwise, he'll just ignore it (just as he promises to ignore judicial rulings with which he doesn't agree).
 
  • #5


Agree with D H. right now, the problem we have is not too much judicial authority, but an unreined executive and legislative authority.

I think Gingrich is a dangerous fascist, and it's people like him who are destroying this country.
 
  • #6


Jack21222 said:
This man is openly running as a tyrant. And he's the GOP frontrunner?

I didn't know having judges explain their decisions, something they're suppose to do anyways, constitutes "tyranny". Please look up the word tyrant in the dictionary next time.
 
  • #7


Jack21222 said:
This man is openly running as a tyrant.
Proton Soup said:
I think Gingrich is a dangerous fascist, and it's people like him who are destroying this country.

Please. It's over the top rhetoric like this that can make P&WA a rather nasty place, and that makes our country so very, very polarized.

Try to make your points without resorting to extreme name calling.
 
  • #8


One one hand, he's saying that judges should be "in touch with popular opinion", which I can understand. But when he's talked about actually enforcing this, he then says he would apprehend judges whose decisions he disagrees with.

In other words, he is using accountability to the public opinion as a way to justify being accountable to congress at the president's discretion.
Washington Post said:
Gingrich suggested the president could send federal law enforcement authorities to arrest judges who make controversial rulings in order to compel them to justify their decisions before congressional hearings

This leaves the door absolutely wide open for the president to 'call out' judges he disagrees with, regardless of what the public opinion actually is. I could get behind a law/practice of judges being accountable to a majority opinion, but in practice that doesn't sound like that's actually what he's suggesting. He's suggesting that they should be accountable to congress. Congress has a ~15% approval rating. They are perhaps the absolute worst representation of public opinion.

Sidebar: For reference, can someone post the relevant snippets from the constitution that talk about this?
 
Last edited:
  • #9


russ_watters said:
Judges do answer to Congress according to the Constitution, but we have not been enforcing that.
No they don't. Here is what the constitution says.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Judges decisions can be argued in a higher court. The Supreme Court is the highest court and once they decide, there is no recourse. The only way Congress can enter into this process is by changing the laws that the judges consider when deciding.

russ_watters said:
He's saying judges should explain rulings to Congress and if they refuse to do so that they should be brought there by force.
If that's what Gingrich meant then I disagree with him. But even if he implemented such a rule, it would be meaningless. Judges would come before Congress, explain, and then everyone would go home. On rare occasions, judges would refuse, they would be brought before Congress by force, they would explain, and then everyone would go home. What kind of monkey business is that? I think he meant something worse. Namely, that if he didn't like the explanation, then the judge should be punished.
 
  • #10


Newt has also stated that he would ignore supreme court rulings that conflict with his executive powers.

IMHO I think if that is the case we need to clarify exactly what those powers are. Newt sounds like a man who wants to be King.

As a matter of fact according to Dick Cheney the vice president has the same powers as the president. Would the president and vice president have to agree on what they disagree with??

Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court decisions that conflicted with his powers as commander in chief, and he would press for impeaching judges or even abolishing certain courts if he disagreed with their rulings.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/17/news/la-pn-gingrich-judges-20111217
 
  • #11


It's non of my business but it seems like a fundamental violation of the basis of modern democracy, Trias politica, which is I believe also in the United States Constitution.

Hence if there are judicial issues, that should be settled by judicial means.
 
  • #12


KingNothing said:
One one hand, he's saying that judges should be "in touch with popular opinion", which I can understand.
That's pretty scary, actually. Judges should be in touch with the law. Public opinion is fickle, fickle, fickle, and stupid to boot.

But when he's talked about actually enforcing this, he then says he would apprehend judges whose decisions he disagrees with.
Here he is on solid ground. Congress has the right to impeach (and subpoena) judges. Failing to appear for an impeachment hearing is contempt of Congress. Time to send in the US Marshals!Where Gingrich is wrong is in trying to politicize the impeachment process. Impeachment was designed to be hard. The Constitution requires that Congress must find the person to be guilty of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Note that "we don't like your political views" is not in that list. Gingrich also must know, as a historian, that politicizing the impeachment process is futile. Impeachment alone is meaningless. The person must also be tried and found guilty. There is no chance that a politicized impeachment would pass muster in the Senate.

You asked for references on how impeachment works. The House is responsible for impeaching public officials. This impeachment requires a mere majority. Think of impeachment as the equivalent of a grand jury. After being impeached, the case moves to the Senate. Representatives from the House act as prosecutors; the Senate acts as judge and jury. The catch is that a 2/3 vote is needed to find the impeached person guilty. That's 67 Senators.

Sans that 2/3 majority, an impeachment is just an embarrassment to the House. Even if by some miracle the Senate becomes 67 Republicans, 33 Democrats (fat chance) at least one of those Republicans will vote against a politicized impeachment trial.
 
  • #13


We have a delicate balancing act of three co-equal branches. It is not a judicial dictatorship. When they legislate from the bench the president AND the congress can take action. Together they have the power to reconstitute the judiciary. Newt has bombastic language but he cannot subpoena judges, congress can. He cannot abolish the 9th circus court of appeals but the president and the congress can. Lincoln, the reconstructionist republicans and FDR all had power struggles with the judiciary. This is nothing new.

Skippy
 
  • #14


edward said:
Newt has also stated that he would ignore supreme court rulings that conflict with his executive powers.

Actually, it's worse:

[PLAIN]http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-judges-20111217 said:
Newt[/PLAIN] [Broken] Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court decisions that conflicted with his powers as commander in chief, and he would press for impeaching judges or even abolishing certain courts if he disagreed with their rulings.

"I'm fed up with elitist judges" who seek to impose their "radically un-American" views, Gingrich said Saturday in a conference call with reporters.

I am so, so, so sick of politicians using the words "un-American" to rationalize why their opinions are better than others'. The more I read from this guy, the more I want to vote for Obama, or if Obama decides not to run, a trained monkey who may or may not be opposing Gingrich. Like edward said, it sounds like he thinks the president should be a dictator (but only if he's president).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15


skippy1729 said:
We have a delicate balancing act of three co-equal branches. It is not a judicial dictatorship. When they legislate from the bench the president AND the congress can take action. Together they have the power to reconstitute the judiciary. Newt has bombastic language but he cannot subpoena judges, congress can. He cannot abolish the 9th circus court of appeals but the president and the congress can. Lincoln, the reconstructionist republicans and FDR all had power struggles with the judiciary. This is nothing new.

Skippy

well, they can subpoena judges all they want, but congressional hearings are rarely ever more than theater. and his assertion that they explain themselves before congress seems odd. judges normally write opinions explaining their decisions, don't they? the judge doesn't have to explain anything, he can just read back his opinion. if congress thinks it's bad jurisprudence, then they can take the option of impeachment and dismiss the judge. sure, they could use this process to harass one or two judges, but there's a lot of political price if one wants to go cleaning house in the judiciary.
 
  • #16


The GOP has a great method of picking frontrunners, doesn't it? Michelle Bachmann and her "I will be submissive to my husband in the presidency", Rick Perry and his "I can't remember the third thing", Herman Cain and his SimCity tax plan, and now we have Newt Gingrich and his "I'm going to try to abolish courts I disagree with". I'll just say this, and this is a fact: I will never vote for someone who proposes the abolition of any court because it disagrees with the President's opinion.
 
  • #17


Char. Limit said:
I'll just say this, and this is a fact: I will never vote for someone who proposes the abolition of any court because it disagrees with the President's opinion.

I agree 100%. I think at some point the GOP is going to have to compromise on its values and accept a candidate that doesn't embody extremely far-right views, in order to gain votes in the actual election.
 
  • #18


The narcissism of such statements truly amazes me.
 
  • #19


Both parties have gone through phases of appeasing so much to their extremes so as to make that party's candidates unelectable. This may well be one of those times.
 
  • #20


Char. Limit said:
I will never vote for someone who proposes the abolition of any court because it disagrees with the President's opinion.

I take it then that you would not have voted for FDR who threatened to
"pack" the supreme court if they continued to declare "new deal" legislation as unconstitutional?

Skippy
 
  • #21


D H said:
Both parties have gone through phases of appeasing so much to their extremes so as to make that party's candidates unelectable. This may well be one of those times.

I am beginning to think the republicans best chance would be a deadlocked convention; maybe 45% Romney, 45% Newt, 10% Paul. Making a deal with Ron Paul would be political suicide. They could nominate someone smart enough not to have entered the primary; possibly Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Condy Rice or Bobby Jindal.

Skippy
 
  • #22


Mitt Romney as president with Ron Paul as vice president? I feel like this could end up going places
 
  • #23


D H said:
He's pandering to some of the more vociferous elements of the right.
That was the impression I got when I watched the video. He needs the right wing Christian vote (or so the newsmagazines have said). So, he comes out against a decision which he interprets as furthering the secularization of America.
 
  • #24


Office_Shredder said:
Mitt Romney as president with Ron Paul as vice president? I feel like this could end up going places
Yeah, a guaranteed win for Obama!
 
  • #25


Office_Shredder said:
Mitt Romney as president with Ron Paul as vice president? I feel like this could end up going places

OMG, I've spent three years praying for the good health and safety of the president to keep us from a president Biden. I would never have a good nights sleep with a vice-president Paul!

Skippy
 
  • #26


We know that having Paul as the vice presidential candidate is going to draw very strong support from the libertarian minority. The question is will he be a poison pill for Romney like Sarah Palin was for McCain. I don't think that would happen.

The big story line is going to be small vs big government unless something radically changes. People will be voting Republican either because they support their social policies, or because they think Republican=small government. When the general election hits are you going to vote for Obama because you think the vice president is too small governmenty, given that you were voting for the small government guy anyway? I think that's unlikely.

The Republican base is going to be fired up to get Obama out of office. The libertarian base is going to be fired up to get Paul in office. The moderates are probably OK with Romney instead of Obama since they're very similar politically anyway. I feel like they could sell it and make it work. They can even sell it as the start of Romney's Cabinet of Rivals and make all sorts of crazy Lincoln references
 
  • #27


Office_Shredder said:
We know that having Paul as the vice presidential candidate is going to draw very strong support from the libertarian minority. The question is will he be a poison pill for Romney like Sarah Palin was for McCain. I don't think that would happen.

My views on economics and most social issues are libertarian. I also think Obama is one of the worst in our entire history. I would not vote for a Romney/Paul ticket. I would "throw my vote away" on any rational third party or, lacking that alternative, I would vote for the Anointed One.

Skippy

PS IMO Governor Palin did not sink McCain, but that is another subject. As Asher Peres would say "unperformed experiments have no results".
 
  • #28


If people could be arrested for making wrong decisions half of the bankers in the country would be facing charges.

Even Newt almighty would have to prove that there was an intent to make a wrong decision.
 
  • #29


skippy1729 said:
I take it then that you would not have voted for FDR who threatened to
"pack" the supreme court if they continued to declare "new deal" legislation as unconstitutional?

Skippy

Irrelevant. We're talking about Newt Gingrich now, not Franklin Roosevelt in 1937.
 
  • #30


skippy1729 said:
I take it then that you would not have voted for FDR who threatened to
"pack" the supreme court if they continued to declare "new deal" legislation as unconstitutional?

Skippy

A president is well within his Constitutional rights to appoint whom he wishes to judicial posts; his appointees still have to get through congress.

That's quite different from a Presidential hopeful who wants to send the Marshals to drag judges to impeachment proceedings, because the he thinks the judge's rulings were "un-American". Quite, quite different.
 
  • #31


lisab said:
A president is well within his Constitutional rights to appoint whom he wishes to judicial posts; his appointees still have to get through congress.

That's quite different from a Presidential hopeful who wants to send the Marshals to drag judges to impeachment proceedings, because the he thinks the judge's rulings were "un-American". Quite, quite different.

Granted, Newt has a "big mouth". Political rhetoric aside, he knows that the president cannot impeach or subpoena anyone. It is the prerogative of congress.

FDR's threat was to have congress increase the supreme court to 11 or more members and then appoint new justices who would vote favourable to the "new deal" programs. The court got the message and nothing came of the plan.
 
  • #32


Interesting quote of a statement of a former attorney general.
NY Times said:
"It would lead us to become a banana republic, in which administrations would become regimes and each regime would feel it perfectly appropriate to disregard decisions of courts staffed by previous regimes. That's not what we are."

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, President George W. Bush's attorney general, on Newt Gingrich's statement that the elected branches should be free to ignore judicial decisions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/u...for-gingrichs-tough-talk-about-judiciary.html
 
  • #33


Wow, here comes a constitutional crisis.
 

1. What is the context behind Newt Gingrich's statement about arresting federal judges?

Newt Gingrich, a former Speaker of the House and Republican presidential candidate, made this statement in 2011 during a speech at the Values Voter Summit. He argued that federal judges who make decisions that go against the Constitution should face consequences, including potential arrest.

2. Can federal judges actually be arrested for making "wrong" decisions?

No, federal judges cannot be arrested for making decisions that are considered "wrong" by politicians or other individuals. The Constitution grants federal judges lifetime appointments to ensure their independence and protect them from political pressure.

3. What does Gingrich mean by "wrong" decisions?

Gingrich has not provided a clear definition of what he considers to be a "wrong" decision made by federal judges. However, it is likely that he is referring to decisions that go against his personal political beliefs or the beliefs of his party.

4. Has Gingrich faced any consequences for his statement?

No, Gingrich has not faced any legal consequences for his statement. However, his comments were met with criticism and backlash from both Democrats and Republicans, who argued that his statement goes against the principles of an independent judiciary.

5. How does this statement impact the judicial system in the United States?

Gingrich's statement is concerning for the independence and integrity of the judicial system in the United States. It undermines the principle of checks and balances and suggests that political figures should have control over the decisions made by federal judges.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Back
Top