Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I imagine it would be incredible easy to use all sorts of pejoratives here, so I'll try to keep it to a minimum. I do not see how views like this aren't considered traitorous, especially when you step back and think about what he's actually advocating here. Gingrich would pick and choose which court decisions to follow, thereby exploding the checks and balances et up by the Constitution along with the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Anyone who actually supports this view has tobe considered a traitor as well. This just goes beyond the pale. <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/09/ftn/main20117838.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...38.shtml</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I'm not sure whether Gingrich just doesn't understand very basic concepts about how the 3 branches work together, or whether he understands them just fine and is trying to do something - anything - to appeal to the far-right that dominates the GOP primary electorate to bolster his moribund campaign. But obviously, the courts DO get the final say on interpretation of the law, whether Gingrich likes it or not. That's their role.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 or is it an act of civil disobedience- where he knows the right answer.. much like the wall street protests - it's a fine line. Don't follow Newt close enough to know where he was headed with this
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I think it goes beyond simple civil disobedience. That would be defined as what the Occupy Wall Street people are doing, or maybe sitting in an intersection in an effort to get stop signs. Calling what he's advocating "civil disobedience" creates a very slippery slope. If one wants to protest Bank of America's new debit fees, one doesn't go into a branch and rob the place. By the same token, if you disagree with a court decision, you lobby for a new statute, or look for another plainitff. You don't ignore it and blithely go on, ignoring the law, or try and subpoena the judge and attempt to dictate to him or her how to decide cases, which is exactly what Gingrich is saying. He wants courts to rubber stamp government policies and edicts, a form of government behavior our country has always abhorred.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 however don't we usually view people who don't pay their taxes for whatever reason as using disobeying- and they are ignoring the law. I agree it is a slippery slope I am not advocating for Next by any stretch- but what I am concerned about is lately it seems people or the media decide what exactly is and isn't a certain definition of an act. the Hank Williams mess is a perfect example- as I said before if the same level of admonishment was applied to those criticizing W when in office was used- Hollywood would have been a ghost town. I am glad to see people like Bill Maher acknowledge that...
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Several of us did. He essentially got "Dixie Chick"'d. Arguably not as severely - what they said was far milder, and it essentially got them blackballed from all of country music radio - but the principle is the same. But the Gingrich thing is different. He's arguing that the executive or legislature can view the Constitution itself (which is what delineates separation of power) however they like. Well, no they can't. It may seem kind like a catch 22 that the branch he'd like to limit IS the branch who decides how the Constitution is applied, but so be it; that's our system.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< He wants courts to rubber stamp government policies and edicts, a form of government behavior our country has always abhorred. >>> Part of this rationale, which Gingrich is not alone on the far right in having, goes back to the notion of "strict construction" taken to an extreme. Specifically SPPH, as a lawyer, you know that the concept of judicial review is not contained within the Constitution itself, but was established by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison. It's the same kind of mentality that leads Justice Scalia to say that the Constitution doesn't necessarily prohibit the execution of an innocent man, as long as he has due process, since all the Constitution guarantees is due process and doesn't specifically say that the innocent can't be executed.
