Ok, I read about this story on my phone over dinner last night, and can't find a great source - none seem to have a full transcript, which is what I'd really like, of course. So here's the best one I found in about a minute of searching that has at least a partial transcript.

Posted at 01:55 PM ET, 12/19/2011
Gingrich: Send U.S. Marshals to compel ‘radical’ judges to explain rulings
By Matt DeLong

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.

When asked by host Bob Schieffer how he would force federal judges to comply with congressional subpoenas, Gingrich said he would send the U.S. Capitol Police or U.S. Marshals to arrest the judges and force them to testify.


Gingrich, who in recent weeks has surged to the front of the pack in the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, has come under fire from the left and the right for his attacks on the federal judiciary. Michael Mukasey, former attorney general during the George W. Bush administration, said some of Gingrich’s proposals were “dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off-the-wall and would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle.”

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?

To save you a search, the "Judge Biery" that is referenced apparently ruled that graduating teens could not make religious speeches at a graduation, and ordered the school to remove some specific religious verbiage from their program. I don't know too much about that case though. I'm more interested by the thought of summoning state judges before congress to answer for their rulings - he was a big fan of ousting the judges in Iowa who ruled that preventing gays from marrying was unconstitutional via the Iowa state constitution (hence legalizing gay marriage in the state).

I never cease to be amazed how certain politicians will use the Constitution like a Nerf bat.

Sounds like something the British did in the 1770s!

Didn't Obama sign into law something about locking up US citizens without trial, the other day?

I thought you guys lived and breathed freedom?

We live and breathe "freedom". Which is to say that we embrace the freedom to do things that we like to do, and have been very successful in branding those activities as illegitimately free.

Personally, I embrace freedom as a philosophical concept, which entails the legitimacy of theft by way of killing. After all, the dead could have pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Oh, just imagine if he gets this passed then a democrat comes in to power and absolutely cleans out all judges even remotely leaning conservative through this power Newt wants so badly.

I bet he'd be pretty pissed then.

Maybe, but the GOP did try to give Clinton line-item.

dogma wrote:Maybe, but the GOP did try to give Clinton line-item.

Which he subsequently lost in court.

Wait.

I see what Newt's going on about now!

Why is everybody in a rush to throw away freedom these days? I include the UK in this bracket. Has it come to pass that a few bearded terrorists hiding in caves has reduced the western world to this?
The Warsaw pact countries had 10 million men, 30,000 tanks, and a shed load of nukes, but there was never this level of assault on freedom during the cold war.

How do people like newt always end up hijacking superpowers?

It was said of the British army during the napoleonic wars that it had the knack of finding the least qualified person and making him head of the army. Somehow, that seems to have transfered to modern politics. Rant over.

Fear is the mind killer

Why am I connecting this with his take on cutting funds from cities and states that are sancturary?

Jihadin wrote:Why am I connecting this with his take on cutting funds from cities and states that are sancturary?

What does this (underlined part) refer to?

Why send out U.S. Marshalls?

If elected President can't he just have the military detain them as unlawful enemy combatants and indefinitely detain them now? As President, he would be the Commander-in-Chief of the military, so some people would think the Military has no choice but to follow the orders he gives.

It seems so much easier than sending U.S. Marshalls.

Essentially, cities or towns that don't bow to the Feds to imprison or deport illegal immigrants. They don't card every immigrant pulled over for citizenship status and things like that.

Think that was the connection he did. When judges have a perception of going outside the constitution. Same as the states. The decision they make has to conform to the constitution if not then they have to explain why. Like a hearing.

Jihadin wrote:Think that was the connection he did. When judges have a perception of going outside the constitution. Same as the states. The decision they make has to conform to the constitution if not then they have to explain why. Like a hearing.

If he cared about the constitution he wouldn't be such a vocal defender of the Defense of Marriage Act, which blatantly and outright defies the constitution.

Just curious on your view on mormons with more then one wife?

Jihadin wrote:Just curious on your view on mormons with more then one wife?

I think that she is lucky to have two women who love her that much.

Oh, you mean a dude with two wives? Him, too, I guess.

Hehe.

I think I just decided Newt Is a danger to America.

AustonT wrote:I think I just decided Newt Is a danger to America.

Careful there. Next thing you know, you'll be voting for Obama to take his second term!

Its illegal though. You cannot have more then one wife. Because of the constitution.

Jihadin wrote:Its illegal though. You cannot have more then one wife. Because of the constitution.

Maybe that part of the constitution is unconstitutional...

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:I think I just decided Newt Is a danger to America.

Careful there. Next thing you know, you'll be voting for Obama to take his second term!

Not likely.

Jihadin wrote:Its illegal though. You cannot have more then one wife. Because of the constitution.

The constitution says no such thing. Polygamy is neither specifically protected nor denied by the constitution. The current ruling is that it isn't protected by freedom of religion; that may change...doubtful.

Jihadin wrote:Its illegal though. You cannot have more then one wife. Because of the constitution.

No, it's because of laws that prohibit it and court rulings that say it isn't protected.

The constitution does not prohibit polygamy.

dogma wrote:We live and breathe "freedom". Which is to say that we embrace the freedom to do things that we like to do, and have been very successful in branding those activities as illegitimately free.

Personally, I embrace freedom as a philosophical concept, which entails the legitimacy of theft by way of killing. After all, the dead could have pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Having lived in both countries and being as pro American as I am, I hope this doesn't get taken the wrong way by some of you lot, but I always felt far more "free" in the UK than in the US. There just seems to be way more "rules" in the States. It's harder to get a beer, I can get a ticket for crossing the street in the wrong place and they don't sell paracetamol.

I find it really bizarre that the US has been free of imperial rule for hundreds of years and you guys are still obsessed by it!

Freedom this, freedom that, freedom FM, I always found it really odd personally, I also find it odd just how often the term "greatest country on earth" gets said as well. You hear it all over the place, on the radio, by people on TV, on commercials. It genuinely baffles me, I think it is a tactic that those in power over in the US use, stomp on people but tell them they are free and their country is totally awesome enough as you do it and they will believe it anyway.

As an Iraqi man once told me outside Sadr City in Baghdad..

"The Americans seem to think if they talk about freedom enough we will all start to believe that we are"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:I think I just decided Newt Is a danger to America.

Careful there. Next thing you know, you'll be voting for Obama to take his second term!

Not likely.

My missus said that 4 out of 5 Republican candidates have actually come right out and said "God told me to run"

I don't know if she was yanking my chain or not, but if she wasn't, I suggest you vote for the bloke who didn't say the lord demanded he run!

Its a religion isn't it?

pre beer Matty frightens me.

I feel safer in Israel
Freer in Holland
Drunker in Ireland
More masculine in France.
And I'm a fantastic skater in Canada

Your observation about the actual freedom in America is probably not unique. We've accepted gradual infringement on the rights we purport to revere in exchange for security, services, benefits, etc.

AustonT wrote:pre beer Matty frightens me.

I feel safer in Israel
Freer in Holland
Drunker in Ireland
More masculine in France.
And I'm a fantastic skater in Canada

Your observation about the actual freedom in America is probably not unique. We've accepted gradual infringement on the rights we purport to revere in exchange for security, services, benefits, etc.

Hey ive had two cans of IPA and a bottle of Heineken!

AustonT wrote:Your observation about the actual freedom in America is probably not unique. We've accepted gradual infringement on the rights we purport to revere in exchange for security, services, benefits, etc.

And religion. Can't forget that one.

Mel: I don't get exactly what you mean as I included religion in rights, but likely I'm misunderstanding.

Matty: lightweight it's christmas wheres your brandy and nog, hot rum, ...cinnamon in that fething awful wheat beer bavarians love so much.

AustonT wrote:Mel: I don't get exactly what you mean as I included religion in rights, but likely I'm misunderstanding.

Actually I was saying we've had to give up rights in the name of other peoples' religious beliefs.

Such as blue laws and gay marriage.

My buddy Scott said in Oklahoma you cant buy a beer at the store on a Sunday.

Land of the free?! Its.. Its monstrous!

.....

Im sorry.. this is just too upsetting to talk about anymore..

Im going for a lie down.

We are obsessed with Freedom theatre.

Something to do with our Puritan roots. You know, "we want the freedom to do X, as long as it doesn't include the freedom to do Y and Z too. Everyone knows Y and Z is wrong anyway."

mattyrm wrote: My buddy Scott said in Oklahoma you cant buy a beer at the store on a Sunday.

Land of the free?! Its.. Its monstrous!

.....

Im sorry.. this is just too upsetting to talk about anymore..

Im going for a lie down.

Actually thats pretty common in the states, or you can't buy until after noon or so

I keep it simple and cheap for myself. Up on my meds and two glasses of Jack and coke. After that I'm golden

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:Mel: I don't get exactly what you mean as I included religion in rights, but likely I'm misunderstanding.

Actually I was saying we've had to give up rights in the name of other peoples' religious beliefs.

Such as blue laws and gay marriage.

Well then yes exactly. We continually give up our rights to appease this cause or that and legislate morality and reduce our freedom.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Sounds like something the British did in the 1770s!

Didn't Obama sign into law something about locking up US citizens without trial, the other day?

I thought you guys lived and breathed freedom?

We do, some people just view "freedom" as a more fluid concept than others.

or some freedom are given up as law doesn't pertain to them. Like a law passed for no overnighters in a public park. Doesn't bother me since I don't use the park (exmple...a example)

Jihadin, it bothers me. Back here in the UK, people like to take telescopes and barbecues into parks on summer nights. In the winter, we like to rally cars through the parks.
Are you seriously telling me that if I lived in the USA I would not be able to drive my car through a park at night? The USA is going downhill!

Back on topic - what kind of a name is newt? It's almost as bad as the name Timothy or Matthew The chinese must be laughing - President Newt. Could you imagine Newt Khan, ruler of the Mongal hordes sweeping across Europe. The Mongal invasion would have died in its tracks!

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Back on topic - what kind of a name is newt?

It's short for newton.

I totally didn't know that until someone mentioned it on a forum like 2 days ago.

Huffy wrote:

mattyrm wrote: My buddy Scott said in Oklahoma you cant buy a beer at the store on a Sunday.

Land of the free?! Its.. Its monstrous!

.....

Im sorry.. this is just too upsetting to talk about anymore..

Im going for a lie down.

Actually thats pretty common in the states, or you can't buy until after noon or so

Aiiiieeeeee!!

@Rented Tritium. That may be, but Newton? Sounds like the kid that always got bullied at highschool!

Ronald Reagan has a ring to it, Bill Clinton likewise, but Newt???

Anyway, back on topic. I though the judges were a key part of the checks and balances - 1/3 president 1/3 judges 1/3 congress etc. If Newt tries to neuter the judges, won't there be riots or something?

mattyrm wrote: My buddy Scott said in Oklahoma you cant buy a beer at the store on a Sunday.

Land of the free?! Its.. Its monstrous!

.....

Im sorry.. this is just too upsetting to talk about anymore..

Im going for a lie down.

In Georgia I couldn't buy beer on Sundays...a fact I was unaware of because I stayed on post and bought it at the Class 6, THEN I discovered that you couldn't buy yuengling in Georgia...fething godless communists!

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:@Rented Tritium. That may be, but Newton? Sounds like the kid that always got bullied at highschool!

Ronald Reagan has a ring to it, Bill Clinton likewise, but Newt???

Anyway, back on topic. I though the judges were a key part of the checks and balances - 1/3 president 1/3 judges 1/3 congress etc. If Newt tries to neuter the judges, won't there be riots or something?

Pssst.... I don't know if you know this, but we don't really teach civics in schools anymore. Too busy focusing on math, science, and engineering stuff.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:It was said of the British army during the napoleonic wars that it had the knack of finding the least qualified person and making him head of the army. Somehow, that seems to have transfered to modern politics. Rant over.

Everybody who would make a good President or other high level politician has something better to do.


Also, it might be worthwhile for our European friends to note that the laws regarding a lot of freedoms (or lack thereof) vary widely by state, and even county. For example, alcohol laws, driving laws, whether or not you can be in a park at night, etc.. In a lot of parks around where I'm from you can be there after dark, and a lot of them even have nighttime events, for example.

Jihadin wrote:I keep it simple and cheap for myself. Up on my meds and two glasses of Jack and coke. After that I'm golden

Good time of the year to stock up on those holiday packs that have free glasses at the same price as just a bottle.

I think it's hilariously amusing how people focus on the bolded part:

When asked by host Bob Schieffer how he would force federal judges to comply with congressional subpoenas, Gingrich said he would send the U.S. Capitol Police or U.S. Marshals to arrest the judges and force them to testify.

while failing to acknowledge the rest of the quote.

Congress issues subpoenas to the Executive Branch all the time, and occasionally they even hold officers of the Executive in contempt.

Further, the inferior courts (District Courts and Appellate Courts) are actually created by Acts of Congress, not by the Supreme Court. Extending Congressional oversight to the judges serving on those courts is reasonable, at least from a Constitutional basis.

And finally, as Former Speaker Gingrich said, Congress already uses the power of subpoena over judges in case of impeachment.

What Gingrich is describing is essentially an impeachment proceeding against a sitting judge for exceeding their authority. There's a reasonable discussion that could be held as to whether impeachment is a legitimate way to compel judicial conformity with Congress, but that's a pretty far stretch from what the dialogue from the left has been.

This article, and those claiming "Gingrich wants to arrest judges!", is simply bald-faced politicking by people who don't bother with, and likely aren't interested in, the actual facts.

biccat wrote:What Gingrich is describing is essentially an impeachment proceeding against a sitting judge for exceeding their authority. There's a reasonable discussion that could be held as to whether impeachment is a legitimate way to compel judicial conformity with Congress, but that's a pretty far stretch from what the dialogue from the left has been.

Instead of talking about why hypothetical, undefined boogeyman "on the left" are what's talking about, why don't we talk about whether or not it's wise revamp our judicial system for expressly partisan political reasons, rather then just let the system work as it has been for 222 years? Is it actually broken? The decision that outraged conservatives so - the Biery case - was, in fact, reversed on appeal.

Ouze wrote:Instead of talking about why hypothetical, undefined boogeyman "on the left" are what's talking about, why don't we talk about whether or not it's wise revamp our judicial system for expressly partisan political reasons, rather then just let the system work as it has been for 222 years? Is it actually broken? The decision that outraged conservatives so - the Biery case - was, in fact, reversed on appeal.

First, we're not talking about "hypothetical, undefined boogeymen." I can link you the stories of the people who have been advancing this argument. The reason this is being put forth is to control the story about Gingrich and cast a critical eye on him so as to tarnish his appearance in the eyes of the electorate.

Second, this wouldn't "revamp our judicial system for expressly partisan political reasons." This is the power that Congress already has. The fact that they have failed to use it for political purposes doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Congress has shown a lot of deference to the judiciary, this proposal is asking for Congress to address the court as a coequal branch.

Third, the fact that Biery was reversed so quickly should raise a question as to the judge's fitness to serve, which Congress is specifically empowered to address. If a judge routinely makes erroneous and biased decisions - costing taxpayers, litigants and defendants money to appeal and reverse - then Congress has not only the power of impeachment, they (arguably) have the responsibility to remove a poorly performing judge from his position.

And I could link you to people arguing that the only way for the US to succeed is through it to embrace theocracy, Biccat.

I mean feth, I listen to them occasionally IRL. Some are in my extended family.

Dunno what your point is here.

biccat wrote:The fact that they have failed to use it for political purposes

Is a good thing. The last thing I want is for congressmen to get MORE power over this country; one way or the other, regardless of party, most of them would gladly run the country into the ground to get some extra cash from special interests and corporate sponsors.

They're already doing it anyway.

biccat wrote:
This article, and those claiming "Gingrich wants to arrest judges!", is simply bald-faced politicking by people who don't bother with, and likely aren't interested in, the actual facts.

Fun fact, the first, and only, time the bold phrase exists in this thread is the quoted body of biccat's post.

I am proud to say that his strong standards of argumentative integrity continue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
First, we're not talking about "hypothetical, undefined boogeymen." I can link you the stories of the people who have been advancing this argument.

And yet you haven't done so, perhaps because doing so would entail arguing against an expressed position, rather than one which you are free to alter as befits your own position.

I don't think Newt wants to arrest judges, I think it's a bad idea to set the precedent to subpoena judges decisions congress disagrees with, that sounds like intimidation. If instead judges faced subpoena to testify before congress based solely on partisan activism that'd be another kettle of fish...a kettle of fish salting in some alternate universe were a non partisan commute was to be found.

dogma wrote:Fun fact, the first, and only, time the bold phrase exists in this thread is the quoted body of biccat's post.

Wow dogma, you should really try to expand your horizons outside of Dakka.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5

I would say that your failure to investigate a position before making poor arguments laced with ad hominem attacks is surprising and unusual. But it's not.

dogma wrote:And yet you haven't done so, perhaps because doing so would entail arguing against an expressed position, rather than one which you are free to alter as befits your own position.

See above.

I like this particularly uninformed quote from some un-identified poster up-thread.

I never cease to be amazed how certain politicians will use the Constitution like a Nerf bat.

Perhaps, since you've decided to take a position opposite mine, you could explain, without the personal attacks, how this argument amounts to "us[ing] the Constitution like a Nerf bat." Unless you think that the poster was referencing someone other than Mr. Gingrich when he said "certain politicians."

I'm certainly interested in the opinions of someone who "ended up winning" by "wagering" on his own "academic ability."

biccat wrote:
Wow dogma, you should really try to expand your horizons outside of Dakka.

So you chose to, arbitrarily, make reference to an argument no one else made in this particular thread, without making direct reference to said argument; which was the point of my criticism.

biccat wrote:
I would say that your failure to investigate a position before making poor arguments laced with ad hominem attacks is surprising and unusual. But it's not.

I don't think you understand what ad hominem is. Ad hominem is a form of argument which may, or may not, be fallacious. It is fallacious where it is substituted for a substantive point, but that was not the case in either my statement, or your's as quoted.

That said, I do find it terribly amusing that you would attempt to bandy about ad hominem charges (in the sense they are often used on the internet) while simultaneously committing to an ad hominem statement.

biccat wrote:
See above.

Had you provided support to begin with, rather than shifting the burden of proof, we could have avoided this unpleasantness.

biccat wrote:
Perhaps, since you've decided to take a position opposite mine...

That's odd, I don't think I've expressed a position in this thread, save for that you are not particularly good at supporting your position. I suppose that's in opposition to your position, on the grounds that expressing any position likely presumes to being able to support it, but you never expressly stated that your argument was of a quality sort.

biccat wrote:
...how this argument amounts to "us[ing] the Constitution like a Nerf bat." Unless you think that the poster was referencing someone other than Mr. Gingrich when he said "certain politicians."

It is an exercise of soft (Nerf: threats to subpoena) power (bat: Congress may subpoena) using Constitutional authority (powers granted to Congress) per the convenience of the dominant party. Admittedly, I am inferring that Gingrich would not support such measures were the Democrats in power, but I feel that his historical partisanship justifies the inference.

An independent judiciary is essential to keeping what is left of our democracy. Gingrich is a dangerous narcissistic pig with delusions of grandeur, but what does it say about Republicans currently that so many of them like a guy who left Congress in disgrace years ago with a $300,000 for ethics violations?

Unsurprisingly, a pro-adultery group is endorsing Gingrich. No, that's not a joke. They even bought a billboard.

http://wegoted.com/blog/default.asp?NID=839

Pro-Adultery Website Endorses Newt Gingrich
posted by From the Studio | Monday, December 19, 2011



Pro-adultery website AshleyMadison.com has erected a billboard in Pennsylvania endorsing Newt Gingrich for President. The billboard reads: "Faithful Republican, Unfaithful Husband. Welcome to the Ashleymadison.com Era"

Ashley Madison founder Noel Biderman, said in a statement on Friday: "Now that Newt is the leading contender in the race for the GOP nomination, we felt compelled to make a point to illustrate how times have changed when a serial divorcee/adulterer is capturing the hearts of the American people."

"Gingrich proves that marital fidelity has no bearing on someone's ability to do a job. Rather than judge him, Americans have finally embraced the reality that affairs are commonplace, and perhaps paradoxically, might be an indication of great leadership to come. He is not the first nor last politician who will step outside of their marriage."

AustonT wrote:I don't think Newt wants to arrest judges, I think it's a bad idea to set the precedent to subpoena judges decisions congress disagrees with, that sounds like intimidation.

You think he wouldn't use these powers to do just that...?

He's a total partisan hack, why wouldn't he?

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:Mel: I don't get exactly what you mean as I included religion in rights, but likely I'm misunderstanding.

Actually I was saying we've had to give up rights in the name of other peoples' religious beliefs.

Such as blue laws and gay marriage.

^^ this

BrassScorpion wrote:An independent judiciary is essential to keeping what is left of our democracy.

There is no such thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrassScorpion wrote:Gingrich is a dangerous narcissistic pig with delusions of grandeur, but what does it say about Republicans currently that so many of them like a guy who left Congress in disgrace years ago with a $300,000 for ethics violations?

That Gingrich is a savvy politician with a particularly impressive capacity to appeal to populism.

You know, for the guy who's meant to be the smartest man in the Republican Party, Newt doesn't seem to do a lot of reading. I mean, judges do actually explain their decisions. In fact, their decisions are delivered with explanations for their reasoning, and which precedents played an important role in the decision.

I mean, these things are often really long and written in that horrifically dry style they must teach in law school, so I'm not saying Newt has to actually read the things. But to be unaware of their existence... well that's a little odd considering the Newt's grand intellectual pedigree. Why, it's almost as if he's not actually that smart at all.

frgsinwntr wrote:Fear is the mind killer

Fear? I thought they said beer. Beer is the mind killer.

Not sure if Dune makes more or less sense now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:JBack on topic - what kind of a name is newt? It's almost as bad as the name Timothy or Matthew The chinese must be laughing - President Newt. Could you imagine Newt Khan, ruler of the Mongal hordes sweeping across Europe. The Mongal invasion would have died in its tracks!

For whatever reason, American politics is full of people with really odd names.

Tipper Gore
Scooter Libby
Dick Sweat
John Boehner
Anthony Wiener

Dick Armey

I thought bears were the mind killers, not beer or fear.

Granny D!

Arnold Swarchenegger.

In CA the bars close around 1:45am (2am bar time) and we run to the local shop to buy a case or three of beer before 2am to last until 6am when the bars reopen.

So how does the Supreme Court work in all this? Can Newt arrest them? Or can they tell Congress their arrest would be unconstitutional?

sebster wrote:
Tipper Gore
Scooter Libby
Dick Sweat
John Boehner
Anthony Wiener

Reince Priebus.

That is all.

Melissia wrote:I thought bears were the mind killers, not beer or fear.

Or, in honour of Newt...

Affairs are the mind killer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RatBot wrote:Reince Priebus.

That is all.

Ooh good one. I've thought a name like that should be a character on the Bold and the Beautiful.

Suprise no one brought up 9th Circuit Court

dogma wrote:So you chose to, arbitrarily, make reference to an argument no one else made in this particular thread, without making direct reference to said argument; which was the point of my criticism.

If you honestly believe that no one has made that argument in this thread, then you're delusional. Look at the thread title. Your initial complaint was that no one had used those exact words yet in this thread, yet didn't dispute that a similar argument was being made. Now apparently you're backpedaling in order to avoid having to make a substantive comment.

dogma wrote:I don't think you understand what ad hominem is. Ad hominem is a form of argument which may, or may not, be fallacious.

Please stop and go back and read my post. I didn't say that your personal attacks were fallacious, I said that they were unsurprising. If you'd care to do some research, you'll find that they're actually different words.

dogma wrote:It is fallacious where it is substituted for a substantive point, but that was not the case in either my statement, or your's as quoted.

Given that your posts are typically devoid of substantive points, why would you assume I thought you were making a substantive point?

dogma wrote:That said, I do find it terribly amusing that you would attempt to bandy about ad hominem charges (in the sense they are often used on the internet) while simultaneously committing to an ad hominem statement.

You'll have to be clearer on this point for us rubes out in flyover country. We're not all highly successful research assistants.

dogma wrote:Had you provided support to begin with, rather than shifting the burden of proof, we could have avoided this unpleasantness.

I'm not sure that you understand what "shifting the burden of proof" is. When one shifts the burden of proof he is asking someone else to provide support to negate an assertion that he has made. I never asked others to refute my comments before providing substantive support for them. You might want to read up on these things before making accusations that make you look foolish.

dogma wrote:That's odd, I don't think I've expressed a position in this thread, save for that you are not particularly good at supporting your position. I suppose that's in opposition to your position, on the grounds that expressing any position likely presumes to being able to support it, but you never expressly stated that your argument was of a quality sort.

Yeah, actually you did.

dogma wrote:Fun fact, the first, and only, time the bold phrase exists in this thread is the quoted body of biccat's post.

Implicitly refuting the argument I made.

dogma wrote:It is an exercise of soft (Nerf: threats to subpoena) power (bat: Congress may subpoena) using Constitutional authority (powers granted to Congress) per the convenience of the dominant party. Admittedly, I am inferring that Gingrich would not support such measures were the Democrats in power, but I feel that his historical partisanship justifies the inference.

Er, wait, isn't this from the post I'm quoting?

dogma wrote:I never cease to be amazed how certain politicians will use the Constitution like a Nerf bat.

Pretty sure that was you...

dogma wrote:Personally, I embrace freedom as a philosophical concept, which entails the legitimacy of theft by way of killing. After all, the dead could have pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Yeah, that's arguing against Gingrich...

dogma wrote:the GOP did try to give Clinton line-item.

Although this doesn't address Gingrich's comments, I do find it particularly amusing given your later position that "Gingrich would not support such measures were the Democrats in power." Considering Gingrich was Speaker (and de facto leader of the GOP) when they tried to give the President a line-item veto.

dogma wrote:It is an exercise of soft (Nerf: threats to subpoena) power (bat: Congress may subpoena) using Constitutional authority (powers granted to Congress) per the convenience of the dominant party.

So, presumably, when Congress called Harriet Miers to testify before Congress in the US Attorney firing (non)scandal, this was an example of the DNC "using the Constitution as a Nerf bat"? I know you're going to try to deflect trying to answer a hard question that reflects negatively on your party of choice and belies your claim of independence, but I'd appreciate a yes or no answer.

dogma wrote:Admittedly, I am inferring that Gingrich would not support such measures were the Democrats in power, but I feel that his historical partisanship justifies the inference.

I love historical revisionism. Especially when it comes from people who (claim to) know better. It makes it easy to see where their biases lie.

Is this normal betwen you two?

Personally I think they might be lovers.

Jihadin wrote:Is this normal betwen you two?

Yes

Dogma and Biccat love eachother, but the only way they know how to express it is through endless debate.

It gets rather hot in these threads as a result.

Joking aside, the more Newt talks the less I like him, and I didn't exactly like him before...

Jihadin wrote:Suprise no one brought up 9th Circuit Court

No, surprising that. A shame too, because it stopped me from giving my standard form explanation that the 9th circuit might be the most overruled, but this is a measure of it's activity, as it simply makes a lot more rulings than the other courts. It's also the most court with the most rulings that are upheld, for the same reason.

sebster wrote:No, surprising that. A shame too, because it stopped me from giving my standard form explanation that the 9th circuit might be the most overruled, but this is a measure of it's activity, as it simply makes a lot more rulings than the other courts. It's also the most court with the most rulings that are upheld, for the same reason.

12 out of the 26 cases ruled on from the 9th court this past year the supreme court has unanimously overturned.http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/18/local/la-me-ninth-circuit-scorecard-20110718 That's got to be exceptional.

Scrabb wrote: 12 out of the 26 cases ruled on from the 9th court this past year the supreme court has unanimously overturned.http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/18/local/la-me-ninth-circuit-scorecard-20110718 That's got to be exceptional.

The article you posted notes "Although the proportion of reversals was relatively in line with past years and other appellate circuits across the country"... so even that article accepts that the 9th is overturned about as often as other circuits.

And while 12 out of 26 being overturned sounds like a lot... bare in mind the 9th circuit hears about 10,000 cases a year. Having 19 out of 10,000 cases overturned is, well, pretty low.

This article is a really good summary of the matter;
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ohslj58&div=43&g_sent=1&collection=journals

It argues that far from being the most overturned circuit, having 99.7% of its cases left standing makes it actually the least overturned, which is not the whole of the story, but... well please just read the article.

Scrabb wrote:

sebster wrote:No, surprising that. A shame too, because it stopped me from giving my standard form explanation that the 9th circuit might be the most overruled, but this is a measure of it's activity, as it simply makes a lot more rulings than the other courts. It's also the most court with the most rulings that are upheld, for the same reason.

12 out of the 26 cases ruled on from the 9th court this past year the supreme court has unanimously overturned.http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/18/local/la-me-ninth-circuit-scorecard-20110718 That's got to be exceptional.

What would really be exceptional would be having100% of their last 15 cases in a row overruled, like the 6th circuit. I eagerly the call of Dakka Conservatives to dismantle the obviously bleeding-heart liberal courts of Kentucky and Tennessee.

I only got the one page. I think it's a subscription site. I did find this. http://westreferenceattorneys.com/2011/07/should-the-ninth-circuit-be-judged-by-reversal-rates/

My link says 12 of the 26 9th circuit appeal cases were unanimously overturned. The actual rate of upheld verses overturned was worse."The Supreme Court reversed or vacated 19 of the 26 decisions it looked at from the 9th Circuit this judicial term..."


I guess the 9th just has all the spicy cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:What would really be exceptional would be having100% of their last 15 cases in a row overruled, like the 6th circuit. I eagerly the call of Dakka Conservatives to dismantle the obviously bleeding-heart liberal courts of Kentucky and Tennessee.

We shall destroy them!

Ouze wrote:
I eagerly the call of Dakka Conservatives to dismantle the obviously bleeding-heart liberal courts of Kentucky and Tennessee.

Challenge accepted.
The 6th sits in Cincinnati BTW.

Heritage Foundation wrote:In recent years, the Sixth Circuit has achieved a growing reputation for not just reversals, but summary reversals at the Supreme Court. In a summary reversal, the Supreme Court unanimously reverses a lower court decision without hearing argument or even having a full merits briefing—because the decision is so clearly wrong. It is a sure sign of an activist court misapplying the law.

Among the liberal judges who have helped the Sixth Circuit achieve this less-than-stellar reputation is Boyce Martin. When he was the chief judge, he infamously manipulated the panel of an affirmative action case to make sure liberals outnumbered conservatives. He also shifted the timing of the review of an en banc case—he waited until conservative judges had left the court to circulate the petition, so that they would not be on the panel to hear the case.

I don't know if that fully satisfies what you were hoping for but for at least the last 3 years the 6th has been a generally liberal court.

AustonT wrote:

Ouze wrote:
I eagerly the call of Dakka Conservatives to dismantle the obviously bleeding-heart liberal courts of Kentucky and Tennessee.

Challenge accepted.
The 6th sits in Cincinnati BTW.

Yes, but it has jurisdiction over 4 states. 2 are clearly red, 1 is a swing state, and 1 is blue. My thrust was that it's a generally a conservative court, with most of it's appointees being placed by Republican candidates, regardless of it's actual physical location.

My overall point is that when people say "activist court", they generally mean the 9th, but the 6th, which is a middle-of-the-road court by most measures, is dramatically worst by that metric, yet no one ever mentions them.

Scrabb wrote:I only got the one page. I think it's a subscription site.

It's not a subscription site, it's just got a really gak web layout. There's a little arrow at the top, above the page. Sorry, I should have mentioned that earlier.

I did find this. http://westreferenceattorneys.com/2011/07/should-the-ninth-circuit-be-judged-by-reversal-rates/

Yeah, that article is making one of the points the article I linked to is making - that the 9th only has so many cases overturned because they're simply a bigger court, reviewing more cases every year.

My link says 12 of the 26 9th circuit appeal cases were unanimously overturned. The actual rate of upheld verses overturned was worse."The Supreme Court reversed or vacated 19 of the 26 decisions it looked at from the 9th Circuit this judicial term..."

I guess the 9th just has all the spicy cases.

Nah, they just have the most cases, because they are the biggest Circuit Court. Seriously, they consider about 10,000 cases a year. The Supreme Court only sees fit to review 26 of those, thereby granting default approval to the other 9,974, and only only overturns 19. That rate of approval, 99.81%, is higher than any other court in the land.

There's a funny argument made in the article I posted, that the Supreme Court actually reverses its own previous decisions about once a year, which given it only makes about 90 decisions a year, means the Supreme Court overrules itself about 1% of the time. Which is about five times more frequently than it overrules the 9th. Which is a fun argument, but certainly misleading, in that the nature of Supreme Court decisions are more contentious than what's heard by the 9th on a daily basis, but it does highlight that legal analysis simply isn't a right/wrong thing, because the law is more complicated than that. Two people can't use reason and a sound understanding of the law and produce different conclusions (if that wasn't the case it'd be a frivolous lawsuit), and that counts double for matters reaching Supreme Court review.

Personally, I'd be more worried that courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, tends to vote in Democrat/Republican nominated blocs. That suggests party allegiance holds, on some level, a higher priority than a full review of the law.

Regardless of whether it's being overturned disproportionately or not, the 9th circuit needs to be split up. They've simply got too large of a case load.

The 9th circuit currently has 29 judges while the next highest, the 5th, only has 17. The 11th was split off from the 5th back in '81, there's no reason not to make a 12th circuit from the 9th.

On the federal level, the congressional authority to create courts is found in two parts of the U.S. Constitution. Under Article III, Section 1, "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." Article III, Section 1, also provides that the judges in the Supreme Court and in the inferior courts will not have their pay diminished and will hold their office during good behavior. This section establishes an independent judiciary that cannot be influenced by threats of pay cuts or of removal without cause. Article III courts are called constitutional courts.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 9, confers on Congress the power to "constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." This authority is not encumbered by a clause requiring lifetime tenure and pay protection, so judges sitting on Article I courts do not have lifetime tenure, and Congress may reduce their salaries. Article I courts are called legislative courts.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, under Article I, the Framers of the Constitution intended to give Congress the authority to create a special forum to hear matters concerning congressional powers, and to further the congressional powers over U.S. territories under Article IV, Section 3. This authority allowed the government to create Special Courts that can quickly resolve cases that concern the government. This is considered a benefit to society at large because it facilitates the efficient functioning of government.

The distinction between legislative courts and constitutional courts lies in the degree to which those courts are controlled by the legislature. Control of the judiciary by the legislature is forbidden under the separation-of-powers doctrine. This doctrine states that the three branches of government—executive, legislative, and judicial—have separate-but-equal powers. Legislative courts challenge this doctrine because the pay rates and job security of their judges are controlled by a legislature.

biccat wrote:
If you honestly believe that no one has made that argument in this thread, then you're delusional. Look at the thread title. Your initial complaint was that no one had used those exact words yet in this thread, yet didn't dispute that a similar argument was being made. Now apparently you're backpedaling in order to avoid having to make a substantive comment.

I said no one has made that argument in this thread (as you phrased it) , because no one has. Gingrich himself responded in the affirmative to a question regarding whether or not he would send law enforcement officials to bring Court justices before Congress, he did not say he would have them arrested; meaning that the thread title is entirely appropriate.

You should know by now that I am nothing if not precise when it comes to representing the position made by others. In fact, as I'm sure you're aware, that's one of my central points of criticism regarding your posting style.

biccat wrote:
Please stop and go back and read my post. I didn't say that your personal attacks were fallacious, I said that they were unsurprising. If you'd care to do some research, you'll find that they're actually different words.

Addressing ad hominem as ad hominem has no independent merit unless calling attention to a fallacious usage. Unless your intent was to merely describe my argumentative method, rather than draw a critical line, then I apologize for misunderstanding your laudable attempt at classification.

biccat wrote:
Given that your posts are typically devoid of substantive points, why would you assume I thought you were making a substantive point?

No, my posts tend to be substantive, its simply that said substance is predicated on criticism of your arguments (among those made by others) from the perspective of a logician, which is to say that I don't take a particular stand on the issue in question, but point out why the position you (among others) have taken is unconvincing.

To quote myself "No one cares what you believe, they care about what you can demonstrate."

biccat wrote:
You'll have to be clearer on this point for us rubes out in flyover country. We're not all highly successful research assistants.

Or, it seems, barred attorneys with a basic grasp of argument.

biccat wrote:
I'm not sure that you understand what "shifting the burden of proof" is. When one shifts the burden of proof he is asking someone else to provide support to negate an assertion that he has made. I never asked others to refute my comments before providing substantive support for them. You might want to read up on these things before making accusations that make you look foolish.

I'm guessing that your grasp of the burden of proof is limited to that particular wikipedia entry, because the concept is much more complicated than that. One shifts the burden of proof in any instance in which evidence is offered in opposition to criticism whereby said evidence is not material to the criticism at hand. In this particular instance you offered a set of examples which corresponded to opinions to the effect that Mr. Gingrich was willing to arrest Supreme Court justices. These examples were not material to my criticism as it specifically referred only to this thread. As such, you were essentially committing an ecological fallacy in order to attempt to shift the burden of proof regarding the reasonable nature of my initial contention on to me.

This is further made evident by your willful misinterpretation of the thread title, as discussed above.

biccat wrote:
Yeah, actually you did.

I cannot make a post which is not substantive, and express a position. You are contravening your earlier criticism.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:I never cease to be amazed how certain politicians will use the Constitution like a Nerf bat.

Pretty sure that was you...

That is a position, though not one regarding Gingrich's comments in the sense that I considered them either reasonable, or practical; which was my understanding regarding your statement of taking a position in opposition to yours.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:Personally, I embrace freedom as a philosophical concept, which entails the legitimacy of theft by way of killing. After all, the dead could have pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Yeah, that's arguing against Gingrich...

No it isn't, it was directed towards Do_I_Not_Like_That and his general comment regarding Americans living and breathing freedom.

You're reaching.

biccat wrote:
Although this doesn't address Gingrich's comments, I do find it particularly amusing given your later position that "Gingrich would not support such measures were the Democrats in power." Considering Gingrich was Speaker (and de facto leader of the GOP) when they tried to give the President a line-item veto.

Of course you're forgetting that the GOP held control of both houses, had made significant gains during the previous mid-term, and Clinton held only a 52% approval rating at the time of passage; a fact which many (uneducated or overly optimistic) individuals might interpret as an impending sign of loss.

Additionally, Clinton's express agenda carried a historically bipartisan character, which was clearly shown in his eventual usage of the granted line-item veto.

biccat wrote:
So, presumably, when Congress called Harriet Miers to testify before Congress in the US Attorney firing (non)scandal, this was an example of the DNC "using the Constitution as a Nerf bat"? I know you're going to try to deflect trying to answer a hard question that reflects negatively on your party of choice and belies your claim of independence, but I'd appreciate a yes or no answer.

It isn't really a hard question, as there is a significant gulf of precedent between calling a White House counsel to testify before Congress, and calling a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court.

Though I appreciate the comment that you believe I prefer the Democrats to the Republicans, it further reinforces my belief that you lack the sophistication to perceive politics in any sense beyond "Us vs. Them."

To be perfectly clear, I receive roughly this exact criticism from my friends that are roughly as liberal as you are conservative. Which is to say "irrationally so."

biccat wrote:
I love historical revisionism. Especially when it comes from people who (claim to) know better. It makes it easy to see where their biases lie.

Some other, clearly enlightened, poster once said that irony occasionally is so thick that it can be cut with a knife.

I'm not sure why I've suddenly been reminded of that, though.

While Newt may be talking about an important check on the Judicial it just isn't one that has been used often or with much fanfare.
I think what is causing people to froth at the mouth the most is saying he will enforce the subpeonas with US marshals which seems a tad harsh given that there are already consequences for ignoring these subpeonas and, what I see anyway, an inference that it will be a subpeona delivered by a US marshal who will cuff the judge if s/he doesn't come with them.
My first response was OMG! HOW DARES YOUZ!@!11!!1!1 and then I read and researched, my response now is it's a bad idea to couch it the way he did and there is little reason to get the Marshals involved unless they are needed to bring them in if they ignore the subpeona which wasn't articulated at all.
I still don't like Newt, I've always been amazed at how he retained power despite being a terrible person and I will not be voting for him if he gets the nomination because I believe he is corrupt.

Uelrindru wrote:My first response was OMG! HOW DARES YOUZ!@!11!!1!1 and then I read and researched, my response now is it's a bad idea to couch it the way he did and there is little reason to get the Marshals involved unless they are needed to bring them in if they ignore the subpeona which wasn't articulated at all.

Yes. Except I would disagree with the last part that ignoring the subpoenas "wasn't articulated at all," it was part of the question he was asked.

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...

dogma wrote:I said no one has made that argument in this thread (as you phrased it) , because no one has.

Nor did I say that the argument had been made in this thread. Like I said, I was addressing the argument that was implicitly made in the linked article and others. I assume (perhaps wrongly) that people read sources other than dakka.

dogma wrote:Gingrich himself responded in the affirmative to a question regarding whether or not he would send law enforcement officials to bring Court justices before Congress, he did not say he would have them arrested; meaning that the thread title is entirely appropriate.

Issuing subpoenas is not mentioned in the thread title, making it at least deceptive. Gingrich wouldn't "send US marshals to pull Judges who make unpopular decisions before Congress," he would "send US marshals to pull Judges who ignore subpoenas before Congress." As I described in my post, which you presumably read, Congress already has this power and uses it often against the Executive Branch (at least implicitly when issuing a subpoena).

dogma wrote:You should know by now that I am nothing if not precise when it comes to representing the position made by others.

Wait, what?

dogma wrote:In fact, as I'm sure you're aware, that's one of my central points of criticism regarding your posting style.

Which is why the previous quoted sentence so funny.

dogma wrote:Addressing ad hominem as ad hominem has no independent merit unless calling attention to a fallacious usage. Unless your intent was to merely describe my argumentative method, rather than draw a critical line, then I apologize for misunderstanding your laudable attempt at classification.

You use ad hominem not as a response to arguments but rather as a tool to deflect and post without meaningful content. Therefore, it's not fallacious, it's deflecting, and as I said, par for the course.

Using ad hominem against ad hominem as ad hominem is equally fallacious. And, presumably, against forum rules.

dogma wrote:No, my posts tend to be substantive, its simply that said substance is predicated on criticism of your arguments (among those made by others) from the perspective of a logician, which is to say that I don't take a particular stand on the issue in question, but point out why the position you (among others) have taken is unconvincing.

Except, obviously, when you do take a position. Sometimes it's explicit, as in your first post in this thread, while other times it's implicit, such as when people make absurd comments and you fail to address them.

dogma wrote:Or, it seems, barred attorneys with a basic grasp of argument.

Unfortunately, no. However, if you're interested in becoming one, I'd be happy to assist you in whatever manner I can.

dogma wrote:I'm guessing that your grasp of the burden of proof is limited to that particular wikipedia entry

No, I have a pretty firm grasp of the burden of proof. It's part of what I do at work on a daily basis. I argue with people about failing to meet their burden of proof. I point out what burden they bear. And occasionally I point out to them that the burden of proof has shifted to them.

The problem is that you assume that what you consider the "burden of proof" is correct and therefore all others are wrong.

dogma wrote:One shifts the burden of proof in any instance in which evidence is offered in opposition to criticism whereby said evidence is not material to the criticism at hand.

The burden of proof is shifted when you present immaterial evidence? If this is your understanding of the term then I think we see the core of your difficulty in understanding.

dogma wrote:In this particular instance you offered a set of examples which corresponded to opinions to the effect that Mr. Gingrich was willing to arrest Supreme Court justices.

I looked back at my post and I don't recall mentioning where Mr. Gingrich could legitimately arrest Supreme Court justices. I do recall mentioning that Congress has legitimate oversight over certain Article III judges as part of their oversight power. They would also, as you correctly point out, have the authority to arrest (as it's commonly understood, although probably not correct under a legal definition) Supreme Court justices who refused to show up for an impeachment hearing.

dogma wrote:These examples were not material to my criticism as it specifically referred only to this thread.

If it's not material I thought the burden of proof was shifted? Regardless, those examples are material because the criticism here is that "certain politicians will use the Constitution like a Nerf bat."

As a brief aside, what Gingrich was talking about had to do with Congressional oversight over the judiciary, not Executive. So the part in the article that reads "Gingrich suggested the president could send federal law enforcement authorities to arrest judges" is factually incorrect. I'm sure Politifact will get on that.

dogma wrote:As such, you were essentially committing an ecological fallacy in order to attempt to shift the burden of proof regarding the reasonable nature of my initial contention on to me.

What? Even if I were to take your comments as correct and your criticisms as legitimate, how on earth would that be an ecological fallacy. At this point I'm thinking you've just got a hat full of "fallacy" cards and you're pulling them out at random and hoping one sticks.

dogma wrote:This is further made evident by your willful misinterpretation of the thread title, as discussed above.

I'm pretty sure that accusing others of lying ("willful misinterpretation") is against forum rules as well. However, as I have described, the thread title is indicative of the content of the article published, and therefore I did not misinterpret the title, either willfully or otherwise.

dogma wrote:I cannot make a post which is not substantive, and express a position. You are contravening your earlier criticism.

Sure you can. "I hate Obama." That post takes a position and is not substantive. It expresses a position without clarifying or supporting your position, and therefore leaves the door open to a number of interpretations.

dogma wrote:That is a position, though not one regarding Gingrich's comments in the sense that I considered them either reasonable, or practical; which was my understanding regarding your statement of taking a position in opposition to yours.

It's a position that expresses the belief that Gingrich (because no reasonable excuse can be raised that "certain politicians" didn't apply to Gingrich, or at least a group to which he belongs) is using the Constitution in an improper manner.

dogma wrote:Of course you're forgetting that the GOP held control of both houses, had made significant gains during the previous mid-term, and Clinton held only a 52% approval rating at the time of passage; a fact which many (uneducated or overly optimistic) individuals might interpret as an impending sign of loss.

While that's relevant, it in fact disputes the position that Gingrich wouldn't do the same for a Democrat or against a Republican. If you're admitting that you're wrong, go ahead and do so explicitly. It might be cathartic.

dogma wrote:Additionally, Clinton's express agenda carried a historically bipartisan character, which was clearly shown in his eventual usage of the granted line-item veto.

Not really. His agenda carried a bipartisan character post-1994. How one could be a political science student and not understand Clinton's drastic change in politics after '94 is beyond me.

dogma wrote:It isn't really a hard question, as there is a significant gulf of precedent between calling a White House counsel to testify before Congress, and calling a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court.

So what you're saying is that you're not going to answer the question? Do you make a habit of not answering easy questions?

dogma wrote:Though I appreciate the comment that you believe I prefer the Democrats to the Republicans, it further reinforces my belief that you lack the sophistication to perceive politics in any sense beyond "Us vs. Them."

It's more than simple belief, it's plainly evident from your comments.

dogma wrote:To be perfectly clear, I receive roughly this exact criticism from my friends that are roughly as liberal as you are conservative. Which is to say "irrationally so."

Your widely liberal friends accuse you of preferring Democrats to the Republicans and I, a conservative, accuse you of preferring Democrats to Republicans. And you consider this criticism "irrational"?

dogma wrote:Some other, clearly enlightened, poster once said that irony occasionally is so thick that it can be cut with a knife.

I'm not sure why I've suddenly been reminded of that, though.

Clearly enlightened. Unfortunately, I'm not interested in guessing at your inspiration. Presumably it had something to do with the blinding light of truth?

biccat wrote:Regardless of whether it's being overturned disproportionately or not, the 9th circuit needs to be split up. They've simply got too large of a case load.

The 9th circuit currently has 29 judges while the next highest, the 5th, only has 17. The 11th was split off from the 5th back in '81, there's no reason not to make a 12th circuit from the 9th.

This is the first compelling case I've yet heard for altering the 9th.

Ouze wrote:

biccat wrote:Regardless of whether it's being overturned disproportionately or not, the 9th circuit needs to be split up. They've simply got too large of a case load.

The 9th circuit currently has 29 judges while the next highest, the 5th, only has 17. The 11th was split off from the 5th back in '81, there's no reason not to make a 12th circuit from the 9th.

This is the first compelling case I've yet heard for altering the 9th.

Its not just the number of judges, its how long they take to deliver decisions. The 9th I believe the longest...followed closely by the 6th. And the sheer area and population they cover. Nearly 62 million people in 9 states and 2 territories are serviced by the 9th. Perhaps reducing the 9th to CA,AZ,NV,HI, Guam and the Mariana and creating the 12th with the Cleaver and Alaska. Shrug its not like this is a new issue I know one of my states Senators attempted to block a Clinton appointee until the court was split (I think he was actually hoping to keep him in our potential new circuit)

Ouze wrote:This is the first compelling case I've yet heard for altering the 9th.

I'm not sure what other reasons there are. Are there going to be biased decisions one way or the other? Of course. There's no way to avoid it with Presidential appointment of judges.

As Austin points out, the 9th Circuit covers 20% of the US population. The 11th is just over 10% (32 million). Although that's a pretty poor metric because the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia covers less than a million people, but handles a LOT of cases.

deleted

I get that based on the question asked it wasn't the case and is in fact the point of me posting my reaction. I still see no need for marshals to get involved, Irealize that the question was asked of him would you use marshals but he could have handled it in a manner that says hell yes I will subpeona judges who are pispoor at their jobs and use it as a platform to ruin laws that are valid but no there are methods in place to handle their failure to respond to a lawful request I am happy to let those methods continue to work as they have in the past.
He responded by making it more inflamatory which shows him to either have an incomplete grasp of the situation, be a bad politician, or MEAN to have what he said interpretted the way most people are.

biccat wrote:
Nor did I say that the argument had been made in this thread. Like I said, I was addressing the argument that was implicitly made in the linked article and others. I assume (perhaps wrongly) that people read sources other than dakka.

By the argument "that was implicitly made" do you mean the argument that Gingrich himself implicitly made?

biccat wrote:
Issuing subpoenas is not mentioned in the thread title, making it at least deceptive. Gingrich wouldn't "send US marshals to pull Judges who make unpopular decisions before Congress," he would "send US marshals to pull Judges who ignore subpoenas before Congress." As I described in my post, which you presumably read, Congress already has this power and uses it often against the Executive Branch (at least implicitly when issuing a subpoena).

Presumably a judge who was served subpoena would have made an unpopular decision, or likely expressed the majority opinion. I can't imagine that Congress would issue subpoenas to judges in order to pat them on the back for a job well done. As such, I don't feel the thread title is deceptive, though it is certainly not precise.

Additionally, while it is true that Congress often subpoenas members of the Executive, we are not discussing the Executive, so the relevance is tangential at best.

biccat wrote:
You use ad hominem not as a response to arguments but rather as a tool to deflect and post without meaningful content. Therefore, it's not fallacious, it's deflecting, and as I said, par for the course.

Again, you clearly do not understand ad hominem. Ad hominem, when used as a response to behavior which is characteristic of the target, and material to the argument, is not fallacious. Were I using ad hominem in order to deflect a point, it would not be material to the argument, because deflection entails a statement that is not material to the argument.

biccat wrote:
Using ad hominem against ad hominem as ad hominem is equally fallacious. And, presumably, against forum rules.

There is no forum rule against the use of ad hominem.

biccat wrote:
Except, obviously, when you do take a position. Sometimes it's explicit, as in your first post in this thread...

What, in your words, was the position that I expressed in my first post in this thread?

biccat wrote:
...while other times it's implicit, such as when people make absurd comments and you fail to address them.

Are you therefore claiming that, because I do not address every conspiracy theory that a certain poster in the OT might advance, that I support those conspiracy theories?

Failure to respond does not necessarily indicate affirmation. In fact, there's a particular informal fallacy which speaks to exactly that point.

biccat wrote:
The burden of proof is shifted when you present immaterial evidence? If this is your understanding of the term then I think we see the core of your difficulty in understanding.

Shifting the burden of proof is particular type of informal fallacy, my contention is that you were fallaciously attempting to shift the burden of proof by producing evidence immaterial to the content of my objection.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:In this particular instance you offered a set of examples which corresponded to opinions to the effect that Mr. Gingrich was willing to arrest Supreme Court justices.

I looked back at my post and I don't recall mentioning where Mr. Gingrich could legitimately arrest Supreme Court justices.

You didn't, but several of the articles that you linked to did. You were developing a position with which to frame your own. In fact, the issue of whether or not Gingrich was speaking to the arrest of Court justices is the foundation of this disagreement.

biccat wrote:
Regardless, those examples are material because the criticism here is that "certain politicians will use the Constitution like a Nerf bat."

That isn't the criticism that you were addressing with your linked examples, which entailed the absence of positions expressed in this thread, and is specifically what I was mentioning as regards immaterial examples.

biccat wrote:
What? Even if I were to take your comments as correct and your criticisms as legitimate, how on earth would that be an ecological fallacy. At this point I'm thinking you've just got a hat full of "fallacy" cards and you're pulling them out at random and hoping one sticks.

The implied ecological fallacy arose from viewing opinions similar to those which you objected to and applying the rejections to those "novel" opinions as those already rejected.

biccat wrote:
Sure you can. "I hate Obama." That post takes a position and is not substantive. It expresses a position without clarifying or supporting your position, and therefore leaves the door open to a number of interpretations.

There's plenty of substance there. The "I" indicates the speaker, the "hate" indicates the disposition towards the object, and the "Obama" indicates the object. It is substantive as it describes the substance of the opinions of the speaker. Now, we wouldn't say that statement was substantive if it were made in the context of a thread about Tau, but made in a thread about Obama it certainly contains "substance" relevant to the conversation; maybe not useful substance, but substance.

If we're really going to define "substantive" as "open to a number of interpretations" then no post in the OT (or most places on the internet) is substantive.

biccat wrote:
It's a position that expresses the belief that Gingrich (because no reasonable excuse can be raised that "certain politicians" didn't apply to Gingrich, or at least a group to which he belongs) is using the Constitution in an improper manner.

I never said that he was using it improperly, or even implied it.

I think one of the major issues we have is that you inject a lot of your consideration of propriety into my posts. I don't believe anything is improper, because I don't believe that propriety is a worthwhile concept when applied outside its merit as a means of controlling people.

In essence, Gingrich should do what Gingrich can get away with insofar as it furthers his goals, and people opposed to his goals should mirror that sensibility in undermining him.

biccat wrote:
While that's relevant, it in fact disputes the position that Gingrich wouldn't do the same for a Democrat or against a Republican. If you're admitting that you're wrong, go ahead and do so explicitly. It might be cathartic.

I'm not, of course, as I did not speak to the Presidency in my initial statement regarding Gingrich, only power. This is what happens when you drag in quotes not related to your own expressed position, without providing particular context.

biccat wrote:
Not really. His agenda carried a bipartisan character post-1994. How one could be a political science student and not understand Clinton's drastic change in politics after '94 is beyond me.

The Brady Bill received ~1/3 of the GOP votes in the House and Senate, DADT passed with about 1/4 of the GOP in the House and 3/5 in the Senate, and Clinton ratified NAFTA despite being a product of the elder Bush.

You're making the mistake of looking at the Presidencies of the past as though they existed today, and thus confusing partisanship with ideological affiliation. That's alright though, its a common mistake.

You also seem to have divorced your comment regarding Clinton's bipartisanship from the drastic change in his politics after '94, which also accompanied a drastic change in the Republican leadership. I'm sure, of course, that this was merely an attempt at testing my memory, and not some conscious attempt to conceal the nature of US political history; or God forbid outright ignorance.

biccat wrote:
So what you're saying is that you're not going to answer the question? Do you make a habit of not answering easy questions?

I answered the question. Given your apparent facility at determining what I am implying at any given moment, I assumed that you would be able to determine my specific meaning.

For clarity's sake, no, it is not using the Constitution as a "nerf bat" given that, as you have noted yourself, there is express precedent for issuing subpoenas to members of the Executive.

biccat wrote:
It's more than simple belief, it's plainly evident from your comments.

I can see how, given that I consider essentially everything you say to be poorly considered, if not flatly incorrect, that you would presume that.

This is not to say that you are correct, but I can understand how one so deeply committed to a particular political ideology as you are might come to such a conclusion.

biccat wrote:
Your widely liberal friends accuse you of preferring Democrats to the Republicans and I, a conservative, accuse you of preferring Democrats to Republicans. And you consider this criticism "irrational"?

Of course I was speaking to the essence of you comment, that being a preference of one party over the other, and not the specific language of it.

I should have been more precise, though I appreciate that you have chosen this time to utilize the English language to its fullest extent, rather than in your nominally lax fashion.

dogma wrote:I should have been more precise, though I appreciate that you have chosen this time to utilize the English language to its fullest extent, rather than in your nominally lax fashion.

Given that you've decided to engage in your typical debate tactics of personal attacks (that is, ad hominem) and deflection rather than address the issues raised by this post (whether fallaciously or not), I don't see any reason to continue to engage you in this thread.

I've made a reasoned argument why Gingrich's comments are constitutionally grounded and legitimate, and why the arguments presented in this thread (and elsewhere) require a deliberate misinterepretation of what Mr. Gingrich actually said. If you're interested in discussing any of these points, I'd be happy to engage you. But frankly, I'm not interested in trying to deal with the convoluted logic that you consider arguments.

But because I'm such a nice guy, I'll answer your questions.

dogma wrote:What, in your words, was the position that I expressed in my first post in this thread?

Returning to your comment:
"I never cease to be amazed how certain politicians will use the Constitution like a Nerf bat."

"I never cease to be amazed" : indicates that you believe this to be 1) a recurring theme that is 2) amazing.

"how certain politicians" : Mr. Gingrich in the specific, some group to which he belongs in the general. That group does not include "politicians" as a group or you would not have specified "certain" politicians. I could speculate that you mean Republicans, which is the only group that makes sense in this context, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're only addressing Mr. Gingrich.

"will use the Constitution like a Nerf bat" : use the Constitution as an excuse for objects or goals that are not traditionally recognized as legitimate uses of the Constitution.

Are you therefore claiming that, because I do not address every conspiracy theory that a certain poster in the OT might advance, that I support those conspiracy theories?

Not at all. However, when you participate in a thread and specifically direct your comments to one side while ignoring the failures of the other, it suggests support. Further, when certain ideas are repeated and you participate in a thread without responding to them, it suggests at the very least ambivalence towards them. Then again, you've admitted that you troll the OT. So it's possible that you know exactly what you're doing and you're intentionally trying to pick fights.

Anyway, I'm glad I could help you understand by answering some of your questions. I would appreciate, but do not expect, the same courtesy in the future. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised.

biccat wrote:
Given that you've decided to engage in your typical debate tactics of personal attacks (that is, ad hominem) and deflection rather than address the issues raised by this post (whether fallaciously or not), I don't see any reason to continue to engage you in this thread.

I addressed the points you made by explaining why your arguments in support of them were bad. There is no reason for me to go further if you cannot, or will not, make coherent, convincing arguments.

biccat wrote:
I've made a reasoned argument why Gingrich's comments are constitutionally grounded and legitimate, and why the arguments presented in this thread (and elsewhere) require a deliberate misinterepretation of what Mr. Gingrich actually said. If you're interested in discussing any of these points, I'd be happy to engage you. But frankly, I'm not interested in trying to deal with the convoluted logic that you consider arguments.

Whether or not my arguments are convoluted has no bearing on whether or not they are arguments, nor does the convolution of my 'logic' (apostrophes in order to emphasize your poor usage of the word) have any bearing on the merit of said arguments.

Honestly, if formalized, every argument I have made in this thread could likely be made within 7 terms, including operators.

biccat wrote:
I could speculate that you mean Republicans, which is the only group that makes sense in this context...

Equivocation. There are numerous possible sets, and at least 1 other likely set, according to which you could define the group.

biccat wrote:
Not at all. However, when you participate in a thread and specifically direct your comments to one side while ignoring the failures of the other, it suggests support.

Clearly this is why I brought up the line-item veto.

I'm extremely critical of you, not the bodies with which you affiliate yourself, because I know that you're better than what you express here. You have expressed better here, and yet have also argued to the effect of "But he does it too!" on numerous occasions.

Also, you could at least behave in an honest fashion (I know its difficult) and acknowledge that at least 1 of the phrases of mine which you cited in this thread was made in criticism of Melissia, who is decidedly not on "your side" of the spectrum.

biccat wrote:
I would appreciate, but do not expect, the same courtesy in the future. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Seeing as your entire post was a deliberate ape of my own smarmy style, I suspect that nothing you have said is true.

It also doesn't help that you have blatantly misrepresented my posts, even only those in this thread, and when called on that fact have chosen to avoid a response.

biccat wrote:Regardless of whether it's being overturned disproportionately or not, the 9th circuit needs to be split up. They've simply got too large of a case load.

No argument there.