Washington Post
Comment by Jim Campbell
In the Washington Post’s attempt to make Newt Gingrich out to be some sort of radical with wild ideas, has it occurred to the reader that he is absolutely right?
Newt is not calling for sending out the Marshals to bring in Justices of the Supreme Court, but those that adjudicate from the bench. The Ninth Circuit has without a doubt judges that are so far left, that if they tipped any further the would fall off the planet.
It’s no surprise that the Ninth Circuit Court is overturned by the Supreme Court more often than any courts in the land. Not too bad when one considers their ruling were turned 40 of 56 judgements
These are they type of people who believe pedophilia and rape of a child only require sentences from 18 months to 3 years. Perhaps they might serve on the bench and send these whacked out judges to prison?
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.
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.
Read the transcript of Gingrich’s exchange with Schieffer:
SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you this and we’ll talk about enforcing it, because one of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, the congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before congress and hold a congressional hearing. Some people say that’s unconstitutional. But I’ll let that go for a minute.
I just want to ask you from a practical standpoint, how would you enforce that? Would you send the capital police down to arrest him?
GINGRICH: If you had to.
SCHIEFFER: You would?
GINGRICH: Or you instruct the Justice Department to send the U.S. Marshal. Let’s take the case of Judge Biery. I think he should be asked to explain a position that radical. How could he say he’s going to jail the superintendent over the word “benediction” and “invocation”? Because before you could — because I would then encourage impeachment, but before you move to impeach him you’d like to know why he said it.
Now clearly since the congress has….
SCHIEFFER: What if he didn’t come? What if he said no thank you I’m not coming?
GINGRICH: Well, that is what happens in impeachment cases. In an impeachment case, the House studies whether or not — the House brings them in, the House subpoenas them. As a general rule they show up.
I mean, you’re raising the core question — are judges above the rest of the constitution or are judges one of the three co-equal branches?
Of course Gingrich is right. The Supreme Court is traditionally, and rightfully so, the arbitrator for CONSTITUTIONAL matters, not for ACLU activist nonsense. Freedom of religion is one matter, the right to bear arms is another, freedom of speech another, and freedom from wrongful imprisonment–including the army taking American Citizense to Cuba at the army’s (or an out-of-control socialist’s option). Plainly the Constitution provides the framework for a Republic to function in the way the American People wish to uphold–that has been the reason for much bloodshed by many younr men and women. If judges, federal, state or local are legislating unconstitutional decisioons, they need to be taken to task and taken off the bench. Citizens who live in the 9th district are just as entitled to the benefita of the Constitution of the United States as any other citizen of this country. Where in the hell are the BUSINESS leaders in this country who ought to be behind this candidate 100%? The new Senator from Chicago just endorsed Gingrich and I’d say he knows first hand what the Chicago crowd can do to disrupt this fine country. And that, J.C. is my stand and I am certainly sticking to it.
I support Gingrich going after these judges. It looks like most are hooked up with the ACLU and must be removed.