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?
(Source: Washington Post)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
9 Responses
It seems Newt skipped the class in American constitutional history. The British system had judges responsible to the politicians, as do the states. The Federal constitution (1789 version, nothing later) requires life tenure for judges who can’t be remove because you don’t like their decisions. That is sort of basic. What article (in a left wing newspaper) says that Newt said would be analgous to having a monarchy or allowing the President to dismiss the Congress and rule decree.
“Co-equal branches” does not equal Congressional/presidential superiority.
The US Marshal Service is charged with *protecting* federal judges, not arresting for for political reasons. The judiciary is the only somewhat neutral. This would entirely destroy their neutrality. Gingrich is a dangerous man.
Also, what does this have to do with YESHIVA news?
#1, judges can be removed for bad conduct, and it’s entirely up to Congress what is bad conduct. Deliberately ignoring the law, and handing down decisions that the judge knows very well do not reflect the law as it is written, is certainly ultra vires and impeachable misconduct.
Judges regularly ignore the constitution and make things up that they know very well are not in the constitution, so why should Congress not do the same thing?
Problem today is the pres rules by declarations [like communism] and supreme court are appoint for there progressive agenda instead of guarding the constitution
No. 6: I can think of 5 – a majority – of justices who do not think they were appointed to carry out the progressive agenda of any president. And the more I think about it, I can probably think of 4 others who see their appointments and responsibilities the same way as the first 5.
And by the way, why is Staten Island the only borough of New York City that does not have a representative on the US Supreme Court?
Judges do not regularly ignore the Constitution…it is sadly laughable to hear such popy cock…I wonder how many of you have ever studied even introductory Constitutional Law, or have the vaguest sense of how Constitutional doctrine develops.
For example: You all have the right of religious expression, which includes the right to have an employer make reasonable accomodations to your Shabbos/Yom Tov observance…do you think such a right was in the minds of the founders when the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 – 10) was passed…or when the post-Civil War 14th Amendment was passed?
No…it immerged over two centuries of Supreme Court cases in which the breadth of freedom of religion and due process were developed, usually building upon precedent, and sometimes, though more rarely, revesing prior cases. And Constitutional doctrine will continue to develop that way, for that is the essence of our system.
No. 8: Your last sentence is, perhaps, unduly optimistic, particularly if Mr. Gingrich or his modest proposal about pushing around judges gets any traction. I hope you are right, but there are lots of people who do not appreciate our constitution.
But more to the point: Mr. Gingrich, the supposed deep thinker, has said he would require judges to appear before Congress to explain their opinions. He also said he would “impeach” them, by which I presume he means that he would remove them from office if he were president – or a member of Congress (which he used to be, but that ended badly) and did not like their explanations. Well, the Constitution provides for removal from office of federal judges, but having opinions that the president or Congress does not agree with is not a basis for such removal. So what, exactly, is Mr. Gingrich proposing? Judges write opinions about their decisions, so what is the need for inviting them (or dragging them) before Congress to explain their decisions. In most cases, they have already given an explanation. This whole silly discussion is just Newt sputtering and jumping up and down – not good behavior for a presidential wannabee, but good theater for a book tour.