I dunno exactly about this, but Judicial Review and Judge activism actually isn't in the constitution. That isn't the say that it isn't a good idea, but technically, Congress arguably has the power to pass laws to reprimand judges that willingly violate the spirit of the law. That doesn't take away from the HUGE dickness that is Newt. He seems to have gone full asshole in years gone by. He was never a nice person, persay, but he really has a hard on for himself now.

Um, there are three branches of government. None reports to the other two.

A judge can be impeached for malfeasance. Period. Justifying their actions? No way, Jose.

Unless my grasp of the Constitution is flawed?


>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I dunno exactly about this, but Judicial Review and Judge activism actually isn't in the constitution. That isn't the say that it isn't a good idea, but technically, Congress arguably has the power to pass laws to reprimand judges that willingly violate the spirit of the law. That doesn't take away from the HUGE dickness that is Newt. He seems to have gone full asshole in years gone by. He was never a nice person, persay, but he really has a hard on for himself now.

@GeeSussFreeK

Quote from an article in the NYTimes today

"It would lead us to become a banana republic, in which administrations would become regimes and each regime would feel it perfectly appropriate to disregard decisions of courts staffed by previous regimes. That's not what we are."
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, President George W. Bush's attorney general, on Newt Gingrich's statement that the elected branches should be free to ignore judicial decisions.

@bareboards2

Article 1 Section 8


"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Stating that the Congress can "do what it must" to carry out the duties of legislation

Article 2 Section 2

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"

The chief executive is basically the puppet of the will of the Congress; he more than just reports, but carries out the will of Congress, which is then ratified.

Article 2 Section 3

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them..."

And in other cases, the Chief Executive can demand certain things of the Congress

Article 3 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."

The courts can and should handle things, but Congress can at anytime form its own set of inferior courts for their own purposes. Much like when they called all the tabaco companies in for hearings.

Really, when you get down to it, congress is the real meat of government. It is why I always liked that objection raised in "The Patriot", "why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can. "

It always strikes me how fast you can read through the entire constitution, not even 15 min read! And while there are checks and balances and all that, the bulk of power and responsibility lays in the Congress, as far as I can read anyway. I think we tend to have this notion that the 3 sections are all supposed to be just as powerful as each other; 3 sets of equally strong men fighting for dominance, but when you read it, that isn't the picture presented. Congress is God, the President is their emissary, and the courts their gavel...and if any one of them don't do as they are told, Congress can do what "necessary and proper" to get the job they see as fitting done. Perhaps I am the one seeing it wrong, though. There are also problems the don't really have to do with our constitution, like the legal framework. We work in a case law system legally, but that isn't really spelled out in the constitution. With that said, it would be a far different thing for the President to arrest a Judge and not the Congress...so in so far as we are talking about "President Gingrich" arresting judges and such, that is crazy out of line, and I would consed the point that the President has no such authority. I got the impression that he was talking about Congress, though, so I didn't have a problem with what he said; ultimately, if the Congress feels the courts have not upheld the law, they can come after them, it is there responsibility that the entire letter of the law be executed.

@GeeSussFreeK

Man, thank you, thank you, thank you, for all the work you put into your response! I learned a lot.

However, I would just say that if a judge is not "following the law", he or she is subject to impeachment, yes? Even Gingrich acknowledges that.

And if Congress doesn't like what the courts decide, they can amend the Constitution, yes?

It is the dragging a judge before a Congressional panel to "explain" him or herself that is crazy cakes. (And yes, I heard it the same way, he says "congress" in this clip.) Either impeach or shut up. Let the loser appeal to the next level and let the judgment be overturned.

It is Crazy with a capital Crazy to subject judges to Congressional review on a case by case basis.

@bareboards2 I don't know that I find it crazy, but definitely something that should be as irregular as possible, like you said, mostly in the cases of impeachment only. I think there is an important point that I didn't consider that you made me think of is, that at no time is Congress given the power to have trials. Congress can setup court systems, but those system must then have a court session, perhaps a trivial distinction, but it is different. In other words, Congress doesn't have the ability to call into existence the substance of criminal guilt, only the power to impeach from office, which I believe is what you mentioned just above.

And back to the substance of the video, it does seem like Newt is talking strictly about calling a judge who might of (or might not of) acted improperly as grounds for impeachment...seems valid, but I don't know any of the actual details, I tried to make out the name of the judge to google it, but I can't understand what he is saying for the life of me.


Edit: And it turns out there is a term for this "guilt by legislation and not trial" problem, it is called Bill of attainder, which is explicitly forbad in Section 9. So a law that says Judge Gram is guilt of tresion isn't legal. The framework is so very simple, yet, they thought about things that I only vaugely consider...goooooo founders

http://www.spiritual-politics.org/2011/12/gingrich_v_judge_biery.html

@GeeSussFreeK

Yep. Them founders was smart.