Gingrich and Separation of Powers

[Lucky]

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?

[nots]

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?

Short answer: no, his assertion here has no defense. Very bright guy, but just too many of these kind of off the wall statements. Almost like he tries to out think himself.
I still think after Cain's 15 minutes of fame are up, he might turn out to be the strongest anti-Romney candidate in the GOP field.

[Wonderboy]

he might turn out to be the strongest anti-Romney candidate in the GOP field.

Nah, he's toast. He'll be out within 2 or 3 weeks of New Hampshire.

[onejayhawk]

Some of the things he said are clearly true. Congress does have all the budgetary power, for example. The one that really matters is the subpeonas. That makes some sense, but it is a very dark road.

J

[Judge Jude]

My understanding was that the branches of U.S. government were co-equal.

That said, Gingrich seems like a nut there. Taking a stand one specific matter of national security is a lot different than taking over as a dictator.

[cardboardbox]

was this in your weekly spam emails?

[nots]

Nah, he's toast. He'll be out within 2 or 3 weeks of New Hampshire.

That's certainly the other side of the coin. I think Cain is headed for a spectacular crash and burn. I don't see the anti-Romney people heading back to Perry or Bachmann. Those people are kind of left with Newt by default except for the 10-15% Paulites who will always be Paulites.
No matter what, it's clearly Romney's race to lose.

[Wonderboy]

That's certainly the other side of the coin. I think Cain is headed for a spectacular crash and burn. I don't see the anti-Romney people heading back to Perry or Bachmann. Those people are kind of left with Newt by default except for the 10-15% Paulites who will always be Paulites.
No matter what, it's clearly Romney's race to lose.

Agree. I think Cain is in about minute 12 of his 15 minutes of fame. Once he self-destructs, I think Perry recovers somewhat just because the tea party doesn't have any other place left to go. But none of them look like they can overtake the steady Romney.

To me, the whole thing hinges on the early primaries, especially Florida. If Romney wins NH by even 2 points, he starts to look inevitable. But if he falters and Perry wins SC and Florida, Perry could re-take the momentum. It's potentially very interesting, but I have to say Romney seems to be running a very good campaign under the circumstances.

[Lucky]

was this in your weekly spam emails?

If this is for me, no, I get case updates from the Bar Association, and they will sometimes stick in articles of particular interest. For example, if a lawyer has been sanctioned for a certain type of activity, they'll put it in there as a warning for others not to do it, or if there is a political item of special interest like this, where a Presidential candidate (with some chance of winning) says something incredibly stupid about the judiciary.

[senorsheep]

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?

I wouldn't think the knowledgeable amongst "The Tea Party crowd," whose tenets, according to their websites, include constitutional respect, would be interested in supporting these kinds of tactics.

And that's Newt in a nutshell - a really smart guy with no moral compass. In his world, there's no difference between what you can do and what you should do. It's like he doesn't even realize that he shouldn't be saying this stuff out loud. Or maybe it's just a naked play to Republicans who believe in achieving their goals at any cost.

[cardboardbox]

If this is for me, no, I get case updates from the Bar Association, and they will sometimes stick in articles of particular interest. For example, if a lawyer has been sanctioned for a certain type of activity, they'll put it in there as a warning for others not to do it, or if there is a political item of special interest like this, where a Presidential candidate (with some chance of winning) says something incredibly stupid about the judiciary.

I was able to find one of the original news stories by googling one of Newt's quotes. In the search results were many links to lawyer type websites and through one of them I found a cbs news link.

Pretty stupid thing for Newt to say although I have no doubt most presidents have found ways to work around court rulings.