Former House speaker Newt Gingrich showed no sign Sunday of letting up on his assault on “activist” federal judges. During an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” 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.
I'm no fan of the BlackRobe Society. But I do think that the Constitution was written by thinking men.
We don't need "improvements by Newt the Nut" on the document, thanks.
I'll drink to that, brother.
ReplyDeleteI disagree.
ReplyDeleteAny one man, agency, department, or branch of government taking autonomical contol is, of course, eventually, completely destructive of and for WE THE PEOPLE.
However, this in NOT about "Constitutional posturing".
A lifetime appointment is the ultimate term-limits abuse...especially in today's completely broken political "bull(shit)ring".
Be that as it may, in theory The Constitution is what it is.
In the reality of the twisted incorporation and interpretation of The Constitution throughout the last ~236 some odd years, judges have become all-powerful out of control tyrannical bastards operating in an "above-the-law" totalitarianistic existence "better than the rest of us".
Judges are out of contol in this country, this state, and even this county.
A simple Google search keywording, "judges out of control" will return you a "Yellow Pages" of "hits"...story after story of judicial criminality from the bench "inextinguishable" (that's truly "a laugh") behind their "black robing".
Google: judges out of control
I, myself, am au courant of multiple personal stories of judicial incompetence, oppression, and non-forbearance with the very employers of those judges WE THE PEOPLE. I have numerous personal accounts from self, family, and friends of complete judicial ineptitude hiding behind a corrupt and broken judicial system that allows these discriminating pontificating pompous "anti-magistrates" to ajudge however they may with absolutely no consequences for bad behaviour.
The Constitution is. The corrupt judges are wrong.
Newt, here anywqys, does not want to challenge Constitutional authority. He simply wants to hold bad behaviour completely accountable.
Why any American would NOT want that is baffling.
Peruse other Saint Revolution Dad29 blog comments here.
"Corrupt" judges, ipso facto, are wrong.
ReplyDeleteDecisions are written, not hidden. Every judge is required to 'splain their reasoning, such as it is.
The problem you have, StR, is that all branches of Gummint have 'corrupt' inhabitants. I don't think they are the majority of any branch (there are exceptions--see, e.g., the Democrat absolute power/corruption in the post-Civil War South.)
There are reasons for the appellate system, and reasons for removing judges.
Removal is allowed, and viable; but few politicians have the backbone; many others agree with the courts--making them just as corrupt.
"Newt, here anywqys, does not want to challenge Constitutional authority. He simply wants to hold bad behaviour completely accountable."
ReplyDeleteOh, since you put it that way, St. Revolution, it makes perfect sense for the executive branch to completely usurp the judicial branch. Careful what you wish for, because the libruls in office may also employ your "logic".
TO: Dad29
ReplyDeleteTO: Anonymous 12/19/2011 8:55 PM:
That is NOT what I wrote.
You "put your ink in my pen" by writing, "...it makes perfect sense for the executive branch to completely usurp the judicial branch...".
Did I write OR imply that?!
No.
I, like you, would never want nor agree to/with that.
Let us coin it the "dynamic process" of how judges arrive at the final point of written "decisions". BTW, Dad29, decisions may be written and not hidden but ulterior motives and hidden agendas are NEVER overt and it is simply NOT true that "...every judge is required to 'splain their reasoning, such as it is...".
Many never explain anything and/or remain silent...even under court order.
IOW, it is how these judges treat us, WE THE PEOPLE, throughout the "dynamic process". that I take umbrage with.
The way we're treated during "our day in court".
WE THE PEOPLE, the taxpayers, we OWN these courts.
We own the benches, gavels, chairs, and buildings.
We own the paper, the copiers, the filing cabinets.
We own the uniforms of bailiffs and the robes on the backs of judges.
We own the law, the decisions, and the justice system itself.
Not politicians, judges, cops, nor civil servant "flunkies".
WE THE PEOPLE own it all.
WE THE PEOPLE are the employers of these "knobs".
WE THE PEOPLE OWN THEM.
Yet, as in all civil service, the "entitlement attitude" assumes no accountability to WE THE PEOPLE.
Court commissioners appointed by judges to alleviate workloads screw up "decisions" all the time (because they are NOT judges) and, then, the appellate process subjectively assumes "guilty until proven otherwise". The judges steadfastly stand behind bad decisions waiting for "an act of God" to overturn their subjective cementheads.
It is as inequitable as the social worker infrastructure in the healthcare industry in this country that looks, in the next ~75 some odd years, to "cancerously" metastasize and destroy the health care operations in this country...all because inept unskilled incompetent nobodys have been given a "power trip" by the legal system. Ask anyone who has had to deal with social workers in divorce, elder care, or hospital stays.
These people are horrible...and incompetent...but empowered...so dangerous.
Same with judges.
The judiciary in the USA have taken their judicial Constitutional freedoms completely out of context and are out of control.
WE THE PEOPLE don't exist to them during the "dynamic process" of law.
This is who and what Newt, from what I interpret, wants to finally hold accountable.
I am a PaulBot (except for his freemasonry ties) but I say more power to Newt on this one.
Peruse other Saint Revolution Dad29 blog comments here.
Only impeachment or the ballot box do WE THE PEOPLE have authority over the conduct of judges. Encroachment on judicial independence is an affront to the separation of powers inherent in our Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThere is NO precedent, no legal basis, no constitutional means, for Newt's proposal. WE THE PEOPLE support the checks and balances system. WE THE PEOPLE support the rule of law. WE THE PEOPLE support changing the rule of law by legitimate means, not the tyrannical methods you suggest, St. Revolution. No matter how you spin it, your support for Newt's actions borders on treason.
Well, there IS the Constitutional clause which allows Congress to remove legislation from judicial review (or similar.)
ReplyDeleteI'm sympathetic to Newt's intention, but not the method as he expressed it.
TO: Anonymous 12/22/2011 10:30 PM:
ReplyDeleteOnce again, we have AnonyMenstrual delivering his fourth grade presentation on civics and government.
Your crap reads like an 11-year-old copying square out of the the Funk And Wagnalls.
"...only impeachment or the ballot box do WE THE PEOPLE have authority over the conduct of judges. Encroachment on judicial independence is an affront to the separation of powers inherent in our Constitution..."
Prove it. In all the tens of millions of pages of law, case law, and precedent, show me proof that these are the ONLY two ways...you lazy king jackass of false surmising.
Shit, it is SO obvious you are simply regurgitating recent writings from Dad29, myself, and others...within and without of this blog. You may even have cut/pasted your diatribe right out of the cited articles.
"...there is NO precedent, no legal basis, no constitutional means, for Newt's proposal..."
Prove it, you jackass. You wanna make a sweeping general puke like that, prove it, you plagiarist. And use your own f**king brain to do it, Eddie Haskell. This is grown-up land, not Mrs. Fifth Grade Civics.
"...WE THE PEOPLE support the checks and balances system. WE THE PEOPLE support the rule of law. WE THE PEOPLE support changing the rule of law by legitimate means..."
Oh, is THAT what the Democrats and liberal traitorists like you have been doing in Madison, Milwaukee, and all over Wisconsin since early Spring 2011?! Is that what you call "following the rule of law"?!
"...no matter how you spin it, your support for Newt's actions borders on treason..."
Don't give up your day job for acting...you have no talent whatsoever...as a writer or actor. Your melodrama sucks... Attach your treason to a cattle prod and shove it where you love it, dandy Mary boy.
All in all, you're pretty damn worthless...no talent, no writing ability, a lazy good-for-nuthin' researcher, an horrendous blogger, and a chicken shit hiding behind "Anonymous".
Prove your bullshit, bullshitter.
You waste my all too valuable time.
Fly away, Mary Fairy.
100 IQ imitator stooges like you REALLY bug me...
Peruse other Saint Revolution Dad29 blog comments here.
Projecting again, I see, St. Revolution.
ReplyDeleteAnyone can simply disprove your zany assertion without any effort--If one takes a literal reading of the Constitution, it does not state anywhere in that document that Congress has the authority to summon judges before it to justify their decisions, nor does the president or the states to ignore federal laws or federal judiciary decisions.
The LEGAL process to remove judges who violate their oath of office is impeachment.
Moreover, presidents who ignore Supreme Court decisions at their discretion is a TRAITOR, from Andy Jackson who refused to uphold the Worcester decision, to Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, to FDR trying to pack the Supreme Court, the Executive Branch was seeking to expand its own power at the expense of the other two branches. WE THE PEOPLE will not stand for that treasonous act that would lead to the death of judicial independence!
What Newt proposes, and you support, wreaks of a purposeful effort to create a constitutional crisis. WE THE PEOPLE will not tolerate this dangerous proposal!
And you claim to have a "superior" intellect, my fellow anonymous friend? HA!
Merry Christmas!