Newt Gingrich: I would ignore supreme court as president

[alp227]

Newt Gingrich has pledged that on his first day as president he will set up a constitutional showdown by ordering the military to defy a supreme court ruling extending some legal rights to foreign terrorism suspects and captured enemy combatants in US custody.

The Republican contender told a forum of anti-abortion activists ahead of South Carolina's primary election that as president he would ignore supreme court rulings he regards as legally flawed. He implied that would also extend to the 1973 decision, Roe vs Wade, legalising abortion.

"If the court makes a fundamentally wrong decision, the president can in fact ignore it," said Gingrich to cheers.

The Republican contender, who has made no secret of his disdain for the judiciary, said that as president he would expect to have repeated showdowns with the supreme court. He said the court would lose because it is the least powerful and least accountable arm of government.

full: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/19/newt-gingrich-ignore-supreme-court-president

[tblue37]

1. Sounds like Nixon, who believed that "if the president does it, it isn't illegal." I guess these

idiots don't know the difference between the rule of law and absolute monarchy.

[harmonicon]

30. Unfortunately, Bush proved that statement to be true, and Obama has followed up on that practice. nt

[boppers]

34. How has Obama attacked the US?

Treason has very specific meanings.

[harmonicon]

40. Not treason, but "if the president does it, then it's not illegal."

The most egregious examples I can think of involve the murder of US citizens by their own government.

[Veracious]

64. Come HARD or go home

You need to cite your references for whacked assertions like this. Total nonsense.

[harmonicon]

75. What?!?! Have you had your head buried in the sand?!

Hold on. I'll look up several and post another reply to your message, but I assumed this was something everyone already knew about.

[harmonicon]

78. Ok, here are a few links.

This Salon one links to other sources to give you some background on what happened during the coma you've been in since November, 2008.

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/30/awlaki_6/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/anwar-al-awlakis-family-speaks-out-against-his-sons-deaths/2011/10/17/gIQA8kFssL_story.html

[Maraya1969]

150. We should have put Bin Laudin on trial? We are at war.

This is fairy land compared to bush. Please just shut up.

[harmonicon]

152. Oh, how civil of you! You're so nice.

Of course we should have arrested Bin Laden and put him on trial. Back in the old days - you know, before W. decided that shit like habeas corpus, facts, evidence, etc. don't mean shit - that's how we handled criminals. I happen to not think that abstract ideas like law are quaint.

We are at war? Really? You think so? W. saying so doesn't make it true. Even if we are at war, we aren't at war with Pakistan, where we murdered Bin Laden.

[Charlemagne]

80. Here

Read this short article from the WaPo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-united-states-still-the-land-of-the-free/2012/01/04/gIQAvcD1wP_print.html

[MrBlueSky]

81. Here's how Obama has attacked the US...

All of the Bush Administration evils are still going on under Obama...

Rendition, Torture, Military Tribunals, Gitmo still open, warrantless wiretapping, waterboarding, military propaganda being reported as news, etc. etc. etc.

No change under Obama.

I voted to change that... and he has disappointed me horribly.

[bathroommonkey76]

108. It's still going on in my backyard

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101429606

[wordpix]

131. got us OUT of Iraq, is working on getting us OUT of Afghanistan, against torture & waterboarding

...O is not perfect but recall, he was handed a big pile of steaming sh___ when he took office and has been digging out from under it. I think he's getting better.

I guess you'd prefer Newt or Rich Mitt getting elected?

[MaineDem]

38. Please give details. n/t

[harmonicon]

41. See above. nt.

[Maraya1969]

151. Opinion pieces don't count

[harmonicon]

153. You dispute the facts contained in the links I provided?

The related facts are not opinion; the US has killed its own citizens without charges or trial.

[tabasco]

101. Well, that didn't take long.

Typical DU idiocy.

[harmonicon]

102. I'm an idiot for knowing the facts?

Is that it, or am I an idiot for criticizing the president for violating the US constitution?

[tabasco]

109. Facts? If Glenn Greenwald says the President is violating the Constitution

by killing members of al qaeda, it just HAS to be true, doesn't it?

Hint: Complicated issues require a little bit of critical thinking.

[harmonicon]

110. There's nothing at all complicated about it.

US citizens were murdered by our government without even having charges filed against them, one of them a child.

[boppers]

117. Battlefield deaths are not murder.

Quite simple.

[harmonicon]

119. There was no battlefield involved.

I was going to say, "nice try", but you didn't even try very hard at all.

[boppers]

120. Perhaps you are not familiar with our current battlefields:

Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Quatar, Oman, Jordan, Iran.... Basically, the whole AQAP zone along with a few nearby neighbors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_the_Arabian_Peninsula

The AUMF doesn't care about national boundaries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

[harmonicon]

128. I know that you know you're wrong.

Trust me, I'm not doing this for your benefit, but for that of someone who may think for some reason that you're putting forth a credible argument.

1. The resolution you cite is meaningless clap-trap. It certainly doesn't trump the US constitution. Did you think it was something like a constitutional amendment? I didn't think so.

2. If you do think it is, maybe you forgot that it was for this: "such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad" - Do you see where instead of, as you assert, reading "murder", it reads "protect"?

3. Al-Awlaki had nothing to do with any terrorist attack in the US, and his son who would have been like 6 at the time certainly did not.

If one little resolution did mean what you suggest, it would mean that no US citizen has rights anywhere in the world as far as the US government is concerned, once the president decides they don't. If that's a world you want to live in, congratulations. It's not a world that I like living in.

[boppers]

143. It's not a world I like living in.

It is, however, what congress authorized.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

95. Gingrich, just week: "Obama = Imperial Presidency"

Just last week:

Gingrich said Obama's recent recess appointments showed "a total willingness to violate the law and impose an imperial presidency."

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/16452911/new-gingrich-ad-calls-romney-plan-timid

Don't these hypocritical right-wing pieces of shit just make you sick? These fuckers will say or do anything to grab power.

[nanabugg]

132. no

So much for "the law and order" party.

[alp227]

147. that was from the 1977 David Frost interview

"...when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

[Tumbulu]

2. isn't this called TREASON?

Why doesn't the press call him on this? Why doesn't anyone (except us) call him on this.

What a ridiculous imbecille, always was and still it.

[Scairp]

7. Yes

There is another word for it. I think they call a "coup", when one of three branches of government uses military force to repress, or overthrow, another branch. I doubt this would go over well with the House or the Senate so he'd have to send the military after them as well to complete this "reorganization" of our government, or as it was known in some South American countries back in the 60's & 70's, a "coup d' etat". He is a complete moron, but who are these people listening who would give him this great ovation for proposing such a thing, even if it's just hypothetical?

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Hmmm no, read what is treason in the US

much more narrower than that.

Though it could be an impeachable offense.

[SemperEadem]

26. Treason in the US

Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


so it would appear that Gingrich has done nothing to warrant being seized and held for treason.

Now, IMO, what he is proposing is treasonous IMO, as it serves to damage the authority of the Constitution in the vainglorious attempt of a little Napoleon to ram-rod his narrow-minded bullshit down everyone's throats. I doubt seriously if he would be allowed to get away with it. Frankly, the two people witnessing this overt act of proposing to quell an entire, legitimate branch of the government has been met, if this is on videotape and one can clearly hear him saying this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Words have meanings

though in my opinion anybody who says that, should be disqualified from running for dog catcher, let alone POTUS.

[elehhhhna]

43. he justsqualified himself foer that new detainee program.

Yay, waytogo Newt

[Scootaloo]

77. No, it's not treason

it IS, however, blatantly illegal on constitutional grounds.

[hack89]

84. No - go read the Constitution. nt

[Journeyman]

3. That's the way, Newtie! Antagonize the people who will preside over your impeachment!. . .

[Aida F]

4. duRec nt

[provis99]

5. golly gee, Newt is a modern day Andrew Jackson!

or at least, Andrew Jackson without the populism...

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. + Brazillion

[no_hypocrisy]

32. Jackson was my first thought too.

[Angry Dragon]

6. no worries

[bleever]

8. He's too sexy for his oath.

But we knew that already.

[The Wielding Truth]

91. Hahaha! Thanks, I needed the levity.

[Dan]

9. Well, he is no different than Bush,

and like Bush, I don't know why he is concerned with what the SCOTUS will do. Like with Bush, the SCOTUS will kiss his ass (if he is elected), validate every illegal action, ignore constitutional rights every chance they get to prove their loyalty to the GOP and his handlers.

[DeSwiss]

10. What a narcissistic, megalomaniacal.....

- ...asshole.

[Scairp]

11. OMG

Did everyone read this article? What Perry said about China? It's at the end of the piece if anyone is interested. He doesn't endorse overthrowing the government but he does say some dumb shit about China, a civilization that is something like 2,500 years older than ours. Someone correct me if I'm off significantly on that.

[KT2000]

14. cannot attest to the # of years

but he does not have any understanding of history of China.

Western business holds a condescending attitude about China and the people there. Westerners like Romney operate from arrogance. "Trash heap of history??" That might be the nationalized western oil companies that at one time were so confident of their ability to dominate the Chinese.

Romney is so clueless on so many levels.

[Scairp]

17. That was Perry dear

I have no idea if Mitt was there. The article doesn't say.

[KT2000]

76. Ooops! - dear n/t

[Beartracks]

12. And Republicans claim to have some magical understanding of the Constitution. n/t

Dang, where's the "roll eyes" smiley?

=====================

[Beartracks]

13. "Waah! Laws are too cumbersome!" - Newt Gingrich, 2012

"I support the idea of Democracy, unless I don't agree with the reality of it." - Newt Gingrich, 2012

======================

[truthisfreedom]

15. You might try ignoring the Supremes, Newt, but can you ignore your ex-wife?

Her interview on Thursday may derail your run completely, you nitwit. Or is that Newt-wit.

[Scairp]

18. He won't be the nominee no matter what

But at the very least this interview might get him to SHUT THE HELL UP!!

[MADem]

23. Between Marianne doing an interview, and Mittsy's Cayman Islands cash, this is starting to get fun.

I know that Marianne is in better shape than Newt in terms of their divorce--she forced Callista to take the stand and stipulate to "sexual contact" with her husband in exchange for a big chunk of cash from Newt. Otherwise, her lawyers were going to quiz Callista about specific sex acts, who/when/where--that kind of thing. It could have made for some devastatingly prurient transcripts.

If Newt hangs in for too much longer, I would expect to see some of his old staffers from his Mistah Speeekah days start talking--either on or off the record. They have some details I think he'd rather not see aired.

[boppers]

35. Who cares about specific sex acts?

I can't imagine Newt's sex life being any more creative than my own...

Maybe he's a furry, or into baby-play?

[MADem]

36. It was the where, mostly--the Speaker's office suite....and the what, to some extent,

given that Newt, at the very same time all this fooling around was happening, was wagging his finger at Bill Clinton for conduct on his part that was far less frequent and involved far less 'gittin' down and dirty' if you will.

[dmr]

70. I was thinking, too, that maybe he had to hang from the rafters, or

be fed from a baby bottle to rise to the occasion.

[MADem]

146. I heard rumors about the desk, the conference table, and the xerox machine!

I don't know if that was just disgruntled staffers, or had basis in fact!

He did look like a big old baby answering that top question at the SC debate!

[geardaddy]

59. Newtzi obviously does

Wasn't he the one with hard-on for Clinton's BJ?

[colorado_ufo]

94. A furry!

My guess is a pand-er (forgive the pun). Or, Newt in a diaper . . .

[boppers]

118. Ooh, a "pander bear"...

[SemperEadem]

28. no, that's Neut-wit

[MFrohike]

16. Interesting

There are situations where the executive would be justified in ignoring the court. Foreign policy and war are the only two subject areas I can think of right now, but they would qualify. The court has no authority nor legitimacy to rule on questions in those areas. They're clearly designated to the executive and the legislature, not the court. Well, an executive agreement could be legitimately challenged by the court if it was unconstitutional, but that's about it. Or it's as far as my imagination can go at the moment.

The above being said, Newt would find himself in impeachment waters faster than he could blink. The idea that the executive could willfully ignore the court concerning criminal trials is just hilarious. I'm guessing Herr Professor is unaware that the executive lacks the right to get in the way of the other branches in their subject areas. Nixon tried to claim executive privilege for the Oval Office tapes and got slapped down 9-0 by the court because he was obstructing a criminal investigation. Newt would try to argue national security, but I highly doubt the court, even this one, would completely allow the judiciary to be overrun by the executive.

The Roe thing would be fun, too. Newt would quickly find out just how fast injunctions can be slapped on the entire apparatus of the executive. Further, upon leaving office, he'd get to experience the joy of a class-action civil rights lawsuit. While it's true the president can't be sued for his official actions after he leaves office, those actions can't be illegal/unconstitutional (only applies to domestic affairs). While I would really, really enjoy that show, it just wouldn't be worth the dull horror of seeing him as president.

[dballance]

22. No, sorry, the executive is NEVER justified in ingnoring the court. That is why the court is there

The court serves as a throttle on the congress and the executive. You may not like it but that is what ii is for. One day when it pulls your ass out of jail when you have been taken into custody wrongfully like so many of he OWS protestors you might like having some representation.

[MFrohike]

88. Ok

If the court decides to rule on a question of foreign policy, like when Goldwater sued Carter over the handover of the Panama Canal, from where exactly does it derive its authority to rule on that question?

Put simply, does the constitution give it the right or does it assume the right?

[Sgent]

122. Yes and no

The supreme court certainly has the right to rule on whether the executive is abiding by the law, treaties, and constitution. The enforcement though is a political question -- although IMHO contempt of the court by the executive would be good grounds for impeachment.

[MFrohike]

124. This isn't dodgeball

I asked a direct question. From where does the court derive its supposed authority to rule on questions of foreign policy or war?

The court would disagree that "enforcement" in those subject areas is a political question. They've repeatedly called those subjects non-justiciable precisely because they are political questions. In other words, the court lacks the authority and competence to judge them on the merits.

[Sgent]

126. A few examples

Youngstown and Tube v Sawyer deal with its ability to rule on war time presidential actions.

Even in Korematsu they ruled on the merits and not on jurisdiction.

[MFrohike]

138. And you're missing the point

Both of those are tangential to the power to make war and conduct foreign policy.

Korematsu was an internal security matter during wartime that turned on the balance between constitutional rights and security. The question of rights made the court competent. The court had jurisdiction despite the war powers, not because of them. Further, while the court is not competent to rule on the meat of Article 2 powers like war and foreign policy, it always has jurisdiction to hear cases on the bounds of Article 2. The bounds are where that power directly intersects with other parts of the constitution.

[newspeak]

134. I thought carter was honoring a treaty that we had with panama?

Now I wonder how many treaties in history the US has actually honored. Maybe we should ask the native americans.

[MFrohike]

140. He was

Goldwater to was suing to block enforcement.

[Vattel]

27. You are mistaken.

Foreign policy and war often raise constitutional issues that SCOTUS has the authority to decide. One reason is that in cases like Boumedine, the nature and scope of our constitutional rights can become an issue. The president has no authority to violate constitutional rights for the sake of national security, and the courts have the authority to tell him not to do so.

[MFrohike]

89. No I'm not

Boumediene, Hamdi, and Hamdan all deal with CRIMINAL TRIALS not foreign policy. There is a huge difference.

[Vattel]

142. You are mistaken again.

Hamdi v Rumsfeld, for example, deals with wartime detention of someone the government alleged to be an enemy combatant. Part of the issue was whether he had a due process right to contest his detention in court. No criminal charges against Hamdi existed when he filed for habeas. So you are clearly wrong.

[MFrohike]

145. Am I?

Pray tell, exactly what is the purpose of habeas? Could it possibly be to prevent the indefinite detention of a person who has not been formally charged with a crime? Is habeas not a remedy to counter the lack of indictment or arraignment? Oh, I believe it is! What do you know, habeas, by its very nature, implicates a criminal trial! Will wonders never cease?

[Vattel]

156. Lol. Wrong again.

The decision in that case was to allow Hamdi to contest his status as an enemy combatant. So no criminal trial was implicated.

[yellowcanine]

52. Not true. The SCOTUS is the final say on what the Constitution says.

A President who goes against a Supreme Court ruling on a foreign policy question or war question commits an impeachable offense, namely, treason. Whether or not that President would in fact be impeached and convicted is a political question.

[MFrohike]

121. Not even close

A president who refuses to enforce a court ruling concerning foreign policy or war is entirely in the right. The court has NO authority to decide those questions. Article 3 contains nothing directly on point and the most tangential aspect of it only mentions original jurisdiction for cases involving ambassadors. That's a pretty non-existent reed on which to build that argument.

Treason gets thrown around a lot, but unless you can really argue that a refusal to enforce a court ruling is somehow aiding enemies or levying war on the US, you'll end up going nowhere fast.

[2ndAmForComputers]

123. The Fat Amphibian also mentioned Roe vs. Wade.

That, I believe, is not one of those "outside SCOTUS jurisdiction" topics you speak of. Or is it?

[MFrohike]

125. Refer to my original post

I addressed Roe, and by extension all constitutional rights, briefly in that post.

[yellowcanine]

133. The SCOTUS is a part of the Government of the U.S. Disregarding a lawful ruling of the

SCOTUS is tantamount to attempting the overthrow of part of the Government of the U.S., the definition of treason. Regardless of what one calls it, it is a high crime if the House says it is through impeachment and the Senate convicts. Even incorrect SCOTUS rulings should be obeyed by the President. If he doesn't, it is up to the Congress to do something about it if it wishes, as they have the final say as to whether the President committed a crime.

Should note that the SCOTUS jurists can be impeached also so in the event that they overstep their authority there is a remedy.

[MFrohike]

139. Wow

So, if Congress passes a law to kill all black people and the court declares it constitutional, the president is bound to enforce it? You can complain about my example, but it's your logic that sucks.

If the court attempts to overstep its own constitutional boundaries, that would be treason by your own idiosyncratic definition. Perhaps you should think this out before typing it.

[yellowcanine]

141. It is your logic which sucks. "Appeal to Ridicule" is considered a logical fallacy. Check it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule


And yes, depending on what the SCOTUS tried to do - for example, usurp Congressional power by raising their own army - yes that would be treason.

[MFrohike]

144. Righto

Actually, I'm using the flawed logic of your own position to show its weakness. See, you stated, without explanation or qualification, that the president was bound to follow even incorrect court rulings. I pointed out an absurd result. You may think whipping out debate nerd terminology will somehow win the day, but forgive me if I don't fluster that easily. Your argument was overly black and white and lacked any kind of safeguard for abuse or even for the use of common sense. That may sound great when it's in your head, but in practice, as we've seen, it's rather ridiculous.

Given that the definition of treason in the constitution specifically references making war or aiding enemies, your idea about treason is simply wrong. The Framers pretty clearly had an idea of what constituted treason, i.e. warlike activities, and did not find non-violent usurpations of power to be in the same league. If they had, they would have mentioned it. You may decide to argue that, but the assumption that the Framers considered and left out certain language is a basic rule of construction. Put simply, you are trying to expand the definition without any basis other than poor comparison and unsupported opinion. Weak reeds, indeed.

[dballance]

19. Uh, No

The President is bound by the Constitution and even if he or she does not like it they mus uphold it. Including decisions by federal courts including the Supreme Court. To ignore any of the federal courts could probably be considered treason and a "High crime and misdemeanor" So if Newt wants to spurn the Supreme Court then congress should do their job and remove him. We have three branches for a reason. The executive branch does not get all the say.

[nxylas]

25. Defenders of civilization are not bound by your puny human laws

Newt Action!

[MFrohike]

90. Not even remotely

Would it have been treason to tell the Dred Scott court to go to hell? Or the Plessy court?

The branches of the federal government are not so clearly delineated as you think. The court is often said to be the supreme arbiter of the law, but it is not the sole authority. If the court acts unconstitutionally, which is quite possible, the executive would be duty-bound NOT to carry out the orders of it.

[Vattel]

24. That whole checks and balances thing is so 1776-2011.

Is it really necessary to add the sarcasm indicator? Really?

[sofa king]

29. Oh, just like the Nazis?

What an amazing and completely unique coincidence, to be listed alongside the other unique and totally coincidental similarities that Republicans and Nazis have, including:

* nationalism/jingoism;
* support for the rich over the poor and corporations over people;
* use of free air travel through those corporations;
* warmongering and starting wars on false pretenses;
* stealing oil;
* using terrorism to consolidate power and justify the curtailing of civil rights;
* disingenuous diplomacy;
* intimidation at the polls and election theft;
* hostility to social out-groups;
* high rates of homophobia and repressed homosexuality;
* use of the yellow press to project disinformation;
* a preference for warping history to fit one's needs rather than learning from it;
* torture;
* false imprisonment;
* lapel pins;
* Henry Ford and Prescott Bush.

It's lucky for the Republicans that these coincidental similarities don't suggest that modern-day American Republicans are the spiritual and political inheritors of the Nazis. Because if people figured that out, they might never get elected again.

(In the case of Newt's predecessors, the Nazis slid around the German courts by building their own court system within the Nazi Party, and steering all cases through those kangaroo courts instead of real ones. But Newt knows that; that's why he suggested this.)

[tpsbmam]

51. Unfortunately, the Democrats also have some of those things in common. nt

[lunatica]

31. Evidently Newt thinks of the Presidency as a war zone on the Consititutional government

I guess he thinks winner takes all or something. Though all of what exactly remains a mystery.

[barbtries]

33. what country is he from?

so anti-american. i don't get how anyone supports this tool.

[exboyfil]

37. Someone should ask him about

the Supreme Court decision in 2000 regarding Bush and Gore. Clinton was the sitting President - what if he decided to ignore the Supreme Court on this point. That is what Newt is saying here.

[RoccoR5955]

39. More like WE THE PEOPLE will ignore Noot

Come election day, hell, they're ignoring him in the Primaries!

[Evasporque]

42. so commit a high crime or treason right away....

brilliant angry muffin...

[dotymed]

44. Of course,

Citizens United (how Orwellian) is not a "fundamentally wrong decision."

[noel711]

45. Imagine if Obama said such a thing...

the shit would hit the fan,
and the white house would be in flames..

But to hear it from Newt/Mittsy/Perry/Et al
and they stand up and cheer.

Ignorance has no limits these day..

[newfie11]

46. can we say dictator? n/t

[Roy Rolling]

47. Bananas

He reminds me of the dictator in the movie "Bananas" addressing the people on his first day in office.

Esposito: "From this day on, the official language of San Marcos will be Swedish. Silence! In addition to that, all citizens will be required to change their underwear every half-hour. Underwear will be worn on the outside so we can check. Furthermore, all children under 16 years old are now... 16 years old!"

Fielding Mellish: "What's the Spanish word for straitjacket?"

[marias23]

48. On his second day impeachment begins

for violating his oath.

[randome]

49. What happened to state's rights in this barf-bag's little brain?

[olegramps]

50. Isn't this more in keeping with establishing a Theocracy with some Fascism thrown in.

Newt and his ilk including Santorum and the evangelicals' superior sense of right and wrong trumps personal rights. I have little doubt that both he and Santorum are members of Opus Dei. Unfortunately, people will not consider them a dire threat until it is too late and they have infiltrated the top levels of government. Newt won't have to worry about the Supreme Court. It is already compromised by Opus Dei members.

[Swede Atlanta]

53. Such unabashed arrogance.......

Gingrich is not ignorant about the constitutional and historical relationships between the three branches of government. This is nothing but unbridled arrogance to simply ignore the independent judiciary because he disagrees with their interpretation of the Constitution. Whether he likes it or not and whether or not the Founding Fathers actually intended for the Supreme Court to be responsible for constitutional interpretation and application, this has been our historical legacy for 200 years. First year law students know Marbury v. Madison in which the Supreme Court for the first time articulated the concept of "judicial review" under which the judicial branch interprets the constitutionality of Executive and Congressional actions.

Absent changes to the Constitution to declare otherwise, I suggest this matter is settled. The Court knows they don't have the means to enforce their decisions but reasonably assume they will be respected by the other two branches of government in a civilized democracy.

Newt is a shark and would damage this country and the world more than potentially any other candidate. He would make Bush Jr.'s transgressions look like child's play.

[avebury]

54. Obama gave the Bush Jr crowd a pass for all of

their crimes. Why on earth would Gingrich or any of the other idiots ever think that they might be held accountable for any crimes they commit if could become President. By not upholding the Consitution and the law, matters will only continue to get worse.

[AlbertCat]

55. Newt Gingrich: I would ignore supreme court as president

Blah blah blah.....

He'll just say any ol' stupid thing he thinks the "base" will want to hear.


Are there no adults in the GOP?

Can anyone think of a single Republican... anywhere, not just the clown car candidates.... anywhere, that can be taken seriously?

[Hugabear]

56. It would almost be worth it to see Gingrich become president

Just to see him become the first president ever to be impeached and removed from office.

I say "almost" - first, because I wouldn't want to take the chance of him being impeached but remaining in office; and even if he were removed, we'd still be stuck with his veep as president.

[green917]

57. I'm starting a campaign as of right now

I am going to petition my Congress members to propose a Constitutional Amendment stating something to the effect of the following:

No candidate shall be considered for higher Federal office (whether it be as a member of the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial Branch) until such time as said candidate can pass the United States Citizenship Test (or some reasonably equivalent test of knowledge of American history, Civics, and Government) with no less than 80% correct.

Essentially, I'm really tired of these moronic candidates/members of our Government that have no idea how our system of Governance works and couldn't pass a basic American History or Civics exam if pressed to take one. Call me crazy but if you are applying to be the guy in charge of executing the laws of the land, you should have at least a cursory understanding of how the Governing doctrines and documents (the Constitution) apply and you should know that it's not within your purview to "ignore" a co-equal branch of the Government. Statements like this one should immediately disqualify one from being considered for the office in question.

[DetlefK]

62. And 3 mandatory debates with moderators picked by the opposing party!

[newspeak]

136. we can see that our political debates in this country have become a three ring circus

The League of Women Voters once upon a time held intelligent political debates. Now they're nothing but political posturing, no intelligent debate on issues, especially those that really will help the american people.

And some of the cruel shite coming out of the mouths of these ignorant ones, while their constituency applaud, makes me think we've already gone down the rabbit hole.

[GeorgeGist]

66. 80% is pretty low ...

considering the job requirements.

[green917]

82. You have to get 6 of 10 correct to become a citizen

so I figured I'd give them a margin of error. I would think that they should all be able to get 100% but, sadly, I know that's not reality. After all, Paul Revere warned the British on his historic ride, the shot heard round the World was fired in Vermont (even though it landed in Massachusetts 60 miles away), the President can disregard the other 2 branches of Government, and the founding fathers intended for us to have a "Unitary Executive" even though they fought to get away from just that. The bar is pretty low so I figured that 80% was probably asking a lot given the people in question.

[Tumbulu]

96. Great and I agree (nt)

[CrispyQ]

58. That comment has got to bristle some of the egos on the current Court. -nt

[DetlefK]

60. Great news everyone! Citizens United no longer counts!

Heck, all we needed was a visionary like Newt Gingrich.

[Maeve]

61. Is he trying to get back to his book tour? Seriously

That is just nuts.

[Javaman]

63. Perhaps newty would perfer the title of il duce instead? nt

[GeorgeGist]

65. Channeling Andrew Jackson ...

South Carolinian by birth.

[SammyWinstonJack]

67. "It's good to be KING!

Is he serious? Or just playing with his audience?

[Veracious]

69. Like Newt matters he's a LOLOLOLOLOLOL

This guy will be gone in 2 weeks...

[ChadwickHenryWard]

71. This is nothing short of an explicit rejection of the rule of law.

This is beyond dangerous. This is the assertion that the President does not need to follow laws like the rest of us. More than that, this is a rejection of laws that are set up to govern the President's behavior specifically. The ability of the Supreme Court to review actions by Congress and the Executive goes all the way back to 1803. He is essentially here saying that the Supreme Court is not part of the government and has no power whatsoever. We are now wandering in the territory of banana republic dictators, who completely disregard any restrictions on the power of their office.

[newspeak]

137. you mean we may be looking at another dictator wannabe

little boots had wishes that this country was a dictator and he was the dictator. We must have another delusional visionary.

[Kingofalldems]

72. Newty wants an 'open' Supreme Court

[green917]

83. LMAO +1,000,000

[arbusto_baboso]

73. So, Newt, does that mean Obama can ignore Citizens United?

After all, that was a fundamentally wrong decision. So do we ban Super PACs now? Is that okay with you Newtie?

[SCantiGOP]

74. or better yet

ship Newt off to Gitmo for threatening to overturn the constitution.

[arbusto_baboso]

79. I'm good with that, too.

You know, hypothetically, I mean.

[wtmusic]

85. Newt's "jump the shark" moment.

Thanks. Now disappear.

[GodlessBiker]

86. If Newt ignores the Supreme Court, then I plan to ignore it, too.

[Sanity Claws]

87. That's kind of like an open marriage

He'll sleep with the Supreme Court when it suits him. When it doesn't suit him, he will find his pleasure some other way.

So much ego cannot be confined by the Supreme Court.

[texshelters]

92. People who don't think the law applies to them

are called dictators.

And yes, Obama has ordered the murder of US citizens (and re-upping on the Patriot Act, and drone attacks), but the Republicans are making him look good by comparison. (see links above) http://www.infowars.com/extrajudicial-killings-assassinating-awlaki-obama-can-kill-anyone-he-wants-to/

Gingrich and Co. must really want Obama to be reelected or they are just the stupidest crop of major party candidates in history. They make John Kerry look electable.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

98. Only if they win

otherwise, they're called common criminals. Or sociopaths.

Gingrich is obviously both.

[JoePhilly]

93. He'd cheat on the Consitution in a second, or at least ask for an "open relationship" with it.

[Ikonoklast]

97. Newt Chavez said what?

[Prophet 451]

99. He's just lifting policies from Mein Kampf now

Add this to his earlier statement that he would impeach justices who made decisions he disagreed with. I mean, is he now thinking that the Nazi comparison has been so overused and misused that he can just swipe their policies wholesale?

[ZombieHorde]

100. Funny. He is pointing out that rule of law is a myth in the US.

That is not his intention, but that is what he is doing.

[Scurrilous]

103. Thanks.

[cheapdate]

104. "...the president can in fact ignore it", said Newt, adding, "if he's an asshole."

[47of74]

105. Gingrich won't be happy until he has Civil War II

[sakabatou]

106. If you ignore the Supreme Court like that

wouldn't it be illegal?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

107. 3 co-equal branches of government, you ignorant fuckstain

.

[mazzarro]

111. Just like he ignores his wedding vows and discard his women

So he will ignore and discard the SC judgements that he does not like - wow!

[Odin2005]

112. He's channelling President Andy Jackson.

[jmowreader]

113. Newt, what are we ever going to do with you?

You're supposed to say you want to be a dictator during the month-long recount, not during the primaries.

And that is exactly what he's saying: if you elect me, I'm going to be a dictator.

[CherylK]

114. Nutso!!!

[DemonSpawn]

115. I hope Jon Stewart rips him a new one.

Batshit insane, people.

[on point]

116. OK to impeach Clinton for personal affair, but not OK to impeach Newt for ignoring the constitution?

[gordianot]

127. How about that violate the oath of an office before you take the oath of office.

We have had a cold civil war in this country starting with Bush. Newt is just another symptom in a field of radical Republicans who openly advocate for an oligarchy. Imagine Obama winning the election the civil war could heat up. Maybe the Republicans will drop all pretense and say what they want.

[Hubert Flottz]

129. Newtzi don't want to be president...

he wants to be king.

[wordpix]

130. I wonder how many abortions Mr. Open Marriage has been responsible for

He's such a phony

[DemonSpawn]

135. A BIG, FAT PHONY!

Screw off, Newtie.

[Mosaic]

148. Learn some humility fat boy

And keep your dick in your pants. No open marriage for you.

[Initech]

149. He would be the absolute biggest disaster for this country.

[primavera]

154. Why would he need to? This court rubberstamps any rightwing nightmare anyway.

Still, it says a lot about how far the right has come if they're now willing to simply discard an entire constitutionally mandated branch of government.

[ann---]

155. heaven

help us if he ever gets elected as president.