By Doug Book, staff writer
Newt Gingrich has decided that the best way to battle the growing plague of left-wing judicial activism is to simply remove offending judges from the bench. He favors the passage of legislation which would allow Congress to eliminate federal judgeships thereby permitting the President to fill newly created voids with what in Gingrich’s view should be properly schooled jurists ready to make decisions based upon Constitutional content rather than agenda driven, personal preference.
In Federalist Papers #78, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the judiciary would clearly represent the weakest branch of government with “…no influence over either the sword or the purse…” “It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment…” he continued, believing no decision the courts might make could be enforced absent the power the executive branch could bring to bear.
Two centuries later we’ve learned just how much power the federal court system can exercise over every facet of American life as robed, liberal activists ignore the Constitutional rights and wishes of the American people, decide elections, overturn state law and actively , arrogantly legislate from the bench.
But will Gingrich’s scheme to control this abysmally misused judicial power lead to correction or exacerbation of the problem? And more importantly, is it right? When the Supreme Court began to consistently rule against the efforts of Franklin Roosevelt to institute his agenda of “New Deal” socialism, the power hungry egotist sought to re-engineer the make-up of the Court. For each justice 70 years of age, Roosevelt hoped to place one of his compliant cronies on the court, eventually allowing death and retirement to pave the way to complete executive control of the judiciary.
Thankfully he was stopped by an American public outraged at the idea of such a nakedly aggressive attempt to seize judicial power. But unfortunately, though Newt Gingrich’s description of rank judicial activism is quite right, his proposed method of correcting it is little more than a replay of Roosevelt’s abusive plan.
“He uses the Legislature to remove the judges, that he may appoint creatures of his own. In effect, the powers of the Government will be concentrated in the hands of one man, who will dare to act with more boldness.” This is how Representative James Bayard described the attempt of Thomas Jefferson to impeach the entire Supreme Court upon his ascension to the presidency. (2)
It was Jefferson’s contention that “…courts have no power to strike down any law passed by Congress, even if it grossly violates the U.S. Constitution.” And as a result, he was prepared to remove every Justice serving on the court.
But Jefferson failed, Roosevelt’s scheme failed and so will that of Gingrich. It is undeniable that leftist, activist judges ignore both the laws of the United States and its Constitution when deciding a case. But there are prescribed and proper ways to correct such abuses of judicial authority. Remove from power those Republican Senators willing to confirm obviously activist legislators-in-robes to the Federal bench. And above all, elect conservatives to the White House. Absolute power, whether wielded in Republican or Democrat hands, will always corrupt absolutely. The abuses of Barack Hussein Obama have surely taught us that.
Use this site to contact your Congressional Representative:
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
To read more use these links:
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/11/gingrich-follows-fdr-court-packing-scheme
Further reading: http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-01-15.asp
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/11/newt-gingrichs-judicial-philosophy
Related posts: http://www.coachisright.com/here%E2%80%99s-a-message-for-gingrich-supporters-in-iowa-take-a-good-look-at-newt-before-you-vote/
Have you answered this week’s CiR.com poll?
This day in history November 25
1783: The British evacuated New York City, their last military position, after the Revolutionary War. Evacuation Day as November 25 was always called was celebrated as much and more than July 4th in America until 1916 when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson ordered an end to it because he felt it was insulting to the British. Less than five months later he joined the British in their war on Germany.
See Coach on Youtube! Go to the new Coach’s Locker Room page to see and what the Coach has to say on the issues that conservatives care about.
In this world you may have knowledge or you may have repose, but you may not have both. What have you done today to deserve to live in America?
Comments on this or any other coachisright.com essay can be sent by following the posting instructions below.
Related posts:
- Here’s a message for Gingrich supporters in Iowa, take a good look at Newt before you vote
- Newt Gingrich and his love affair with stupidity
- Even Wal-Mart back stabs us; supports Obama’s Health Care scheme to grab monopoly here’s how
- Romney’s TEA party problems present opportunities for Cain and Gingrich
- HR 1687 Open Fuel Standardization Act: a dangerous scheme we can do without
Loading ...
http://www.coachisright.com/gingrich-scheme-a-dan…
OOPS! Wrong link! http://player.vimeo.com/video/6445068?autoplay=1
The REAL Gingrich!
For your convenience please note the Coach is Right videos may be found at:
http://www.coachisright.com/coachs-locker-room/
This will give you a list without the many other Coach youtube videos that come up in a regular youtube search.
Oops! Wrong, Mr. Brook, it will not concentrate the power in the hands of one man any more than the current system does. All judicial appointments will still require "advice and consent" of the Senate, just as it does now.
The Legislative Branch is assigned the power over judge ships in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. ". . . To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court."
What Gingrich may or may not be the best root to ridding ourselves of those pesky activist judges on the lower courts, but it is within the limits of the Constitution. It is true that Congress balked at what Roosevelt's attempt to stack the SCOTUS–even some of his own party were uncomfortable with his effort–but the fact that he attempted it alone was sufficient to swing the court well left of its prior position.
Roosevelt's failed attempt was the beginning of the 5 decade reign of the leftist activist SCOTUS. The only other path to unburdening our nation from the yoke of these leftist activist lower courts is impeachment and there has been a dearth of success in getting Congress to impeach a sitting judge or justice–19 impeached, only 7 convicted.
As long as the decision rests with the body constitutionally empowered with authority over the courts–Congress–I don't see this a some malevolent threat to our nation, nor is it "a dangerous power grab."
As a conservative, as long as it meets the test of constitutionality, I don't see any real threat. It is the Constitution, not any individual's personal wishes or imagined fears, that is the basis of our laws.
Counting on conservatives to not appoint activist judges is too little too late. Something must be done now.
Consider also what just happened in a federal court in Texas. In this case, As described at http://LawInjustice.com , a Dallas business owner was involved in a civil dispute and paid millions of dollars to lawyers, and when he objected to additional fees after settling the case, they had a "friendly" judge, appointed by President Clinton, seize all of his possessions, without any notice or hearing, and essentially ordered him under “house arrest” as an involuntary servant to the lawyers and denied a jury trial. The business owner has been under this "servant" order for 10 months and is prohibited from owning any possessions, prohibited from working, etc..
…and some quotes from the judge:
THE COURT: "I'm telling you don't scr-w with me. You are a fool, a fool, a fool, a fool to scr-w with a federal judge, and if you don't understand that, I can make you understand it. I have the force of the Navy, Army, Marines and Navy behind me."
THE COURT: "You realize that order is an order of the Court. So any failure to comply with that order is contempt, punishable by lots of dollars, punishable by possible jail, death"
Dad was an elected Circuit Court Judge and and an appointed Appellate Court Judge; he served as both before Illinois' judicial reform act. I remember how he felt about what was being done to our court system and how it upset him! It is just wrong to let unelected federally apponted judges change what the citizens vote for. Just look at how the Ninth Circuit has changed California, and the citizens are unable to do anything about it. We know the liberals use these unelected officials to alter our Constitution=think Roe v. Wade. The Democrats use the judicial system to get passed what they can not accomplish through elections. They are changing us into a very leftist country when the majority of US citizens are right of center. We just can not allow these judicial abuses to go on.
Doug : A very interesting article indeed, but alas one which provides no other realistic alternatives to the dilemmas we have been facing with activist judges, than the helpless witnessing of the "least powerful branch of Government" becoming the MOST powerful, (after the Obama administration, of course !).
In our systems of "checks and balances", including those of the Courts, apparently there IS NO manner by which we may constrain the deliberate machinations of both the well-intentioned judges and those judges who exhibit less than honorable intent, less than Constitutional limitations on their renderings, and less wisdom than a schoolyard full of snotty-nosed teenaged boys.
You know, I'm sure, that I am NO fan of Newt Gingrich.
His suggestion to remove sitting judges of course will unfortunately fail, not because he is incorrect in his assessment , but because his approach is every bit as "Tzarist" as something Obama would ideate. He has, however bared this dirty little fact and brought it to light, in a very public fashion. He is correct that this is an extremely serious, insidious breach of our freedoms by another, separate branch of Government whose task it is to PROTECT, not further limit, Americans individual freedoms.
There are gross ambiguities in the original construction and delegation of powers described within the Constitution; and it is through these ambiguities that dishonorable and even well-intentioned men have conceived or contrived their plans unobtrusively, (at least at first), to deconstruct the rule of laws with which they disagreed…(both the rules of the Constitution and the laws enacted by Congress).
Through the intentional or unwise interpretations of those ambiguities, judges have, for example, allowed themselves to misapply case laws which bind juries prior to their deliberations. By so restricting the applicable case laws relevant to the outcome of a hearing, trial or whatever, judges have manipulated and controlled the outcome of juries deliberations….. thereby creating their own case laws and precedents.
I am by nature, by self-education; and by experience (as I witness what goes on around me that is SO politicized, ethically challenged, self-serving, and morally bankrupt), what would be described "back in the day" as an "Anti-Federalist". I would see ALL branches of Government very much reduced in power by whatever means would accomplish the feat.
I do believe that this enterprise would necessarily fall to the individual States to accomplish. They created this monster and they can, through unity and persistence of purpose, dismantle it; one Unconstitutional law and action at a time.
Justice Louis Brandeis, in a dissenting opinion in Olmstead vs. United States stated that, "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
There is another great quote from a chap named Jon Roland in 1996 (I have NO idea who Mr. Roland is, or what caused him to utter such a plain, simple truth) . He said, "Wearing black robes doesn't make fools wise"
I believe, through the TEA Party and through stressing States' sovereignty, that much can be accomplished by way of reducing the over-expansive and freedom-killing powers of both the Congress, the Courts, and the oval office.
As a Californian I have seen 9th circuit judges overrule several of our Propositions. They have led the state into bankruptcy. Now Barry Soetoro is pushing his executive orders to blatantly bypass Congress. His czars have pushed in over 9,000 new regs, most to stifle business, health care, education and access to energy resources. None dare call it treason – yet!
And as I understand it, Moonbeam Jerry is about to put a Proposition on an upcoming ballot allowing VOTERS to decide whether the "rich" should have top pay higher taxes!!! So apparently, voters are only allowed to make decisions with which the left AGREES in Kalifornia! Incredible that the left can transform even California into DETROIT!
To Toddyo….and yet, it IS treason isn't it ?
I would consider Congresses refusal to stop the illegal actions of the jackass in the Oval Office (against a whole SLEW of this Country's States, not just California), treasonous as well.
California has aided in its' own demise by continuing to elect Governors, Senators and Representatives of the Redistribution-school-of- economics-and-social-engineering. Forgive me if I cannot muster up the requisite pathos to join in the keening and hand-wringing over the fate of "The Great Socialist Experiment".
Having said that, am I furious that the Federal Government and the Obama administration continues to force its' will on states (including California), through the Federal Courts, through grossly over-reaching Obama Exec. Orders, through the threats that Federal monies applied extortion-like and held hostage, will be made real when any State doesn't comply with a Federal edict or mandate totally unrelated to the monies in question (example: threatening to withhold Highway funds unless Drug-rehabilitation programs are put in place or expanded….this really happened!), and through the enactment of an abysmally lengthy laundry list of Congressional laws that would never pass Constitutional muster without graft, special interest PAC monies, etc. being directed toward the Courts, State Legislatures and such; you're damn right I'm six kinds of irate !
Toddyo, part of the problem is that rather than banding together to fight the Federal Government encroachment, the States have engaged, to a large degree, in adopting the very same "rule-by-mandate" over its' own citizens, and have fought with each other over the most ridiculous issues. They have totally abandoned the concept that there is both safety and power in numbers.
California has been one of the worst offenders of this rule. Rather than working with its' neighbor States, suffering a few of the same problems, like immigration issues for instance, what does California do? It denies it HAS this problem, denies that citizens are angry about it, and then has the audacity to put out "feelers" for the rest of American Tax-Payers to bail the State out financially to prevent bankruptcy.
It apparently doesn't matter to Californians how they are perceived by residents of her sister States; the only thing I see coming from California is excellent produce and an entitlement belief that the residents of her sister States are duty-bound to help her get out of the mess caused by her own poor judgements, stupid governors, tax and spend State and Federal legislators, laxity on immigration, and serious mistakes in energy calculations.
California if free to "Go Green" if it wants to; but it is NOT free to ask us to pay for your irresponsible choices.
You might want to consider moving Toddyo, 'cause I don't think things in California are going to right themselves anytime soon.
It shouldn't be your personal fate to sink alongside California's Ship of State. You appear to be a very nice person…move to Indiana!
I say California should be forced into bankruptcy proceedings where the Federal government will seize control of most every asset remaining. Then the ownership of California, by the Federal Government will at least be an OFFICIAL act.
Is our Federal Government corrupt beyond rescue ? I think we will find out a partial answer to that question in November 2012.
As an aside, Ron Paul may appear to be an ideological wing-nut, but by God, he is the ONLY candidate who has publicly committed himself to actually, and radically changing ( altering ) the way government has come to be conducted in this Country. It may be worth while taking a second look at him, as well as his son, Rand.
Speaking of Washington power grabs : This article, from the "There's no Honor among Thieves" department showed up in the Washington Times. "Money slated for health law gets detoured"
Both the Obama admnin. and Congress have been ripping off funds "earmarked" for ObamaCare.
For another positively inexcusable "learning experience" regarding the utter corruptness of our alleged "leaders" please visit the following website: http://www.p.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/24/money-...
These leaders are removing money (for which we are being PRE-taxed), from the dedicated funding of a Law whose start-up date hasn't even occurred .
This gives new meaning to "Congressional and Presidential Slush Funding" They steal from us, then once again steal the money they've stolen. What? Don't they have enough of our money laying around to spend ?