Gingrich Urges Overriding Supreme Court (and yet another god)

[rodeodance]

September 29, 2006
Gingrich Urges Overriding Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court decisions that are ''so clearly at variance with the national will'' should be overridden by the other branches of government, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says. ''What I reject, out of hand, is the idea that by five to four, judges can rewrite the Constitution, but it takes two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate and three-fourths of the states to equal five judges,'' Gingrich said during a Georgetown University Law Center conference on the judiciary...

Gingrich, a Republican who represented a district in Georgia, noted that overwhelming majorities in Congress had reaffirmed the Pledge of Allegiance, and most of the public believes in its right to recite it. As such, he said, ''It would be a violation of the social compact of this country for the Supreme Court to decide otherwise and would lead, I hope, the two other branches to correct the court.''

In 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled that the pledge was unconstitutional when recited in public schools because of the reference to God. The Supreme Court in 2004 reversed that decision on a technicality, but the case has been revived. Gingrich said ''the other two branches have an absolute obligation to render independent judgment'' in cases that are ''at variance with the national will.'' He spoke at Thursday's panel discussion on relations between the executive, judicial and legislative branches of government.

Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who spoke on the same panel, noted the high court's 5-4 decision settling the contested 2000 presidential election in favor of Republican George W. Bush. ''What if Al Gore had said I don't agree?'' Daschle asked. ''In a sense, what we did was put the court in the position of the American people. We were giving the court the power to make the decision for the American people based on their best judgment and I'm not challenging the judgment. I accept it, too, even though I disagree.''

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Gingrich-Scotus.h ...

[grasswire]

1. Bork proposed that some years ago

He thought it would be a good thing for Congress to be able to override the SC.

[SharonAnn]

9. So, can we ignore Bush v Gore? And install Gore as president?

Wow, I could go for that.

Thanks for the idea, Newt.

[krispos42]

14. EXCELLENT point! eom

[LynnTheDem]

2. Gee, newt...I do believe that's called "treasonous".

But then, that's something you rightwingnuts do love, ain't it.

[Occulus]

17. ANY law which alters the Constitution, absent an Amendment,

IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Dear Dipshit Newt (and what sort of utterly hateful so-called parents would name their kid after an AMPHIBIAN? :wtf:):

You piece of dung. Did you really think you could make one of our three CO-EQUAL branches of government less equal than the other two by a MERE law and NOT be labeled a fucking traitor?

Your little fond imagining REQUIRES an AMENDMENT. Git 'er done, and go BACK to SCHOOL.

Fucking nitwit.... or was it 'newtwit'.....


HHHmmmmm.... 'New Twit'.

I like it :evilgrin:

[Somawas]

3. One of the ideas behind

that whole pesky constitution thing was to protect minority rights. Another was to put the whole issue of some rights outside the field of debate. So they would be protected. Did New miss those days at school?

[SaveOurDemocracy]

5. They shut down Congressional oversight...

...the Supreme Court is next on their agenda.

[Gman]

4. Gingrich is starting to sound like

he's running for president.

[President Jesus]

18. starting to?

[madrchsod]

6. so ? that`s why the founders wrote the process that way

newt knows this, he`s just talking shit

[jeff30997]

7. Gingrich ?

Gingrich ??? Bwahahahaa!!!:rofl: No comment.

[The Wielding Truth]

8. Dismantling the checks and balances to setup Bushco dictatorship.Why?

[judaspriestess]

10. so whats the point of even having the SC in their fucked up eyes

and why is this fugley jerk even yapping that trap of his? what a waste of oxygen

[bananas]

11. bad link - last three letters chopped off

correct link: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Gingrich-Scotus.html

[Zenlitened]

12. Start rounding up these neo-Stalinists and throw 'em down a hole.

Because, clearly, they are enemies of America's very system of government, a perilous danger to us all.

Enemies of Democracy?

We ARE fighting them "over here," folks. They threaten everything this nation stands for.

[keopeli]

13. The timing of this is very suspicious. Are they trying to make the SCOTUS

Are they trying to make the SCOTUS blink?

The SCOTUS is 'supposed' to represent balance, impartiality and equity.

The model works well, but every so often a bad President installs bad judges that are activists and attempt to CHANGE the law instead of interpret it. Scalito and Thomas come to mind. Everyone knows they are actively trying to change the law.

Bush v. Gore was a blunder of epoch proportions because the SCOTUS should never have had the power to make that decision. That authority rests constitutionally in the Congress. The SCOTUS actually ignored the Constitution.

The reason Bush (via Newt) is promoting this with their puppet Democrat is because the SCOTUS has been trying to redeem itself and threw the Geneva Conventions at Bush (making him a war criminal).

Gonzales has spent all of his time writing legislation that will appeal to the SCOTUS to try and turn their vote. That's the only stumbling block between prison and absolute authority.

Ignore the bravado. This is designed as a veiled threat to SCOTUS...imho.

[Tellurian]

15. Yep, my opinion also..

Scalia and Thomas are Federalists and would be the turncoats on the SC.
I'm not sure of Alito's position, though..

[krispos42]

16. There are some things that are not subject to popular support

The tyranny of the majority, I believe it is called.

A hundred years ago the "national will" wanted to make women second-class citizen.

I hundred fifty years ago the "national will" wanted blacks to be non-human property, essentially 2-legged livestock.

The Confederacy was founded on "state's rights". Yet no state can take away basic human rights witnout due process, including the fact that you are, in fact, human.

I really don't care if the majority of people want something. What I care about is that that majority is kept from trampling the rights of the minority.

Ramming God down our throats is wrong, and I don't give a fuck what the "national will" is, because the "national will" is kept in check by the Constitution.

If the "national will" is to hang gays by the neck until they are dead dead dead, the Constitution shields them.

If the "national will" is to have the Border Patrol shoot illegal Mexicans on sight as they cross the border, the Constitution shields them.

If the "national will" is to drag Bush kicking and screaming from the White House and toss him ass-over-teakettle into the Potomac, that, too, is protected by the Constitution.

With the insertion of "Under God" into the Pledge several decades after its creation, the Repubs turned it into a prayer. Lesson: they should have left well enough alone, because they've been taking flak for it ever since.

[tanyev]

19. USA, 1776-2006. RIP.

[Mountainman]

20. "most of the public believes in its right to recite it." So?

The constitution protects us from the tyranny of the majority. Gingrich knows better than that. I think he is just talking to the nuts like freepers who will vote for an idea like that against their own best interests. And what about the co-equal branches of government? There are supposed to be checks and balances not two branches ganging up on the third.

People like Gingrich see our Constitution getting in the way of their greed and power ambitions.

[BreweryYardRat]

21. Newt really needs to go back to writing books.

And stay out of politics. Fascist jackass.

[Cerridwen]

22. Cool. Can we start with "corporate personhood" which was

granted via the U.S. Supreme Court; a clerk of the Court, to be specific?

[xchrom]

23. national will = law?

where is that in the constitution?