Newt Gingrich would send US marshals to pull Judges who make unpopular decisions before Congress

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

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).

**dogma**

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

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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?

**dogma**

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.

**Melissia**

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.

**dogma**

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

**Melissia**

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!

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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.

**frgsinwntr**

Fear is the mind killer

**Jihadin**

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

**Melissia**

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?

**Easy E**

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.

**Ahtman**

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.

**Ouze**

**Jihadin**

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.

**Melissia**

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.

**Jihadin**

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

**Melissia**

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.

**AustonT**

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

**Melissia**

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!

**Jihadin**

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

**kronk**

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

Maybe that part of the constitution is unconstitutional...

**AustonT**

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.

**Melissia**

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.

**mattyrm**

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!

**Jihadin**

Its a religion isn't it?

**AustonT**

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.

**mattyrm**

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!

**Melissia**

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.

**AustonT**

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.