Newt Gingrich is often referred to as the smartest of the GOP Presidential candidates, and he very well may be. He certainly says some smart things from time to time.
But he also says some things that make me wonder whether he has recently suffered a blow to the head, or just pandering to the worst in the electorate.
One of the things that we learn as lawyers, something that is drilled into us until it is reflexive, is that when the Supreme Court decides a matter, it is the law of the land. Whether we think they are right or wrong, their decisions are binding, and unless they later change their mind in another opinion, or unless there is a statutory development which changes the underlying basis for the ruling, we are stuck with it. Not only lawyers learn this, but any kid who takes a civics class knows this.
Newt, however, has his own ideas.
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is elaborating on his plans for taming the federal judiciary.
On national security issues, Gingrich said at a Values Voters Summit on Friday, he saw no reason to obey some U.S. Supreme Court rulings, report CBS News and the Atlantic. "I would instruct the national security officials in a Gingrich administration to ignore the Supreme Court on issues of national security," Gingrich said.
Gingrich also told the summit and Face the Nation on Sunday that Congress could subpoena federal judges and ask them to explain their decisions. Gingrich thought the subpoenas could have "a sobering effect" on judges' assessment of their powers.
He also had another proposal for chastising judges. The Atlantic has Gingrich’s quote: “Congress has the power to limit the appeals, as I mentioned earlier. Congress can cut budgets. Congress can say: ‘All right, in the future, the 9th Circuit can meet, but it will have no clerks. By the way, we aren't going to pay the electric bill for two years. And since you seem to be—since you seem to be rendering justice in the dark, you don't seem to need your law library, either.’ ”
We've seen some Presidential administrations hint at similar positions. Ed Meese and others staking out the position that all Supreme Court decisions were limited to the particular facts of the case and had no precedental value, for example.
But, what is your take on this? I see it as no more than a play to get the Tea Party crowd to boost him up for a while longer, but does anyone thing there is actual merit to his position?
But he also says some things that make me wonder whether he has recently suffered a blow to the head, or just pandering to the worst in the electorate.
One of the things that we learn as lawyers, something that is drilled into us until it is reflexive, is that when the Supreme Court decides a matter, it is the law of the land. Whether we think they are right or wrong, their decisions are binding, and unless they later change their mind in another opinion, or unless there is a statutory development which changes the underlying basis for the ruling, we are stuck with it. Not only lawyers learn this, but any kid who takes a civics class knows this.
Newt, however, has his own ideas.
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is elaborating on his plans for taming the federal judiciary.
On national security issues, Gingrich said at a Values Voters Summit on Friday, he saw no reason to obey some U.S. Supreme Court rulings, report CBS News and the Atlantic. "I would instruct the national security officials in a Gingrich administration to ignore the Supreme Court on issues of national security," Gingrich said.
Gingrich also told the summit and Face the Nation on Sunday that Congress could subpoena federal judges and ask them to explain their decisions. Gingrich thought the subpoenas could have "a sobering effect" on judges' assessment of their powers.
He also had another proposal for chastising judges. The Atlantic has Gingrich’s quote: “Congress has the power to limit the appeals, as I mentioned earlier. Congress can cut budgets. Congress can say: ‘All right, in the future, the 9th Circuit can meet, but it will have no clerks. By the way, we aren't going to pay the electric bill for two years. And since you seem to be—since you seem to be rendering justice in the dark, you don't seem to need your law library, either.’ ”
We've seen some Presidential administrations hint at similar positions. Ed Meese and others staking out the position that all Supreme Court decisions were limited to the particular facts of the case and had no precedental value, for example.
But, what is your take on this? I see it as no more than a play to get the Tea Party crowd to boost him up for a while longer, but does anyone thing there is actual merit to his position?
Comment