Slog Comments


Comments (24) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
mkyorai 1
Charming man. Can we get a link to that statement?
Posted by mkyorai on January 19, 2012 at 11:42 AM · Report this
samktg 2
Conservatives, rugged constitutionalists! When it suits them!
Posted by samktg on January 19, 2012 at 11:43 AM · Report this
He has to get the nomination
Posted by Democrat1234 on January 19, 2012 at 11:44 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 4
It's like when you make a marriage vow, and then decide you want to fuck some other woman. A sociopath -- any sociopath -- can, in fact, ignore it.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on January 19, 2012 at 11:45 AM · Report this
bgk 5
and the constitution cries in the corner
Posted by bgk on January 19, 2012 at 11:49 AM · Report this
NaFun 6
What about "Rule of Law" do you not understand, Newt?
Posted by NaFun on January 19, 2012 at 11:57 AM · Report this
Things you can say when you know there is zero chance of ever being in a position to deliver on your promise.
Posted by Proteus on January 19, 2012 at 11:58 AM · Report this
I can't help but feel that the current Supreme Court, by being so nakedly political in its decisions, helped bring about this lack of respect for it, even by one of its own.
Posted by scott (the other one) on January 19, 2012 at 12:01 PM · Report this
ryanayr 9
Roe v Wade actually came after Washington State already legalized abortion. So, without Roe v Wade, Washington State would still have legalized abortions. Has Gingrich explicitly stated that he would make abortion illegal in all 50 states? They always scream about states' rights, but it's usually just hot air.
Posted by ryanayr on January 19, 2012 at 12:13 PM · Report this
OuterCow 10
@8 Agreed.

But yeah, in all fairness Obama, who actually has the job, is willing to ignore the Constitution when he really wants to assassinate a US citizen w/o charge or trial. When it comes to ignoring the Supreme Court or ignoring the Constitution, is one really that much worse than the other?
Posted by OuterCow on January 19, 2012 at 12:14 PM · Report this
Brooklyn Reader 11
I think I understand Newt's argument. He sees the President as the last bastion of defense of the values of our nation.

So, say there was a dangerous fascist movement, one which would overthrow the rule of law, but one which the Supreme Court said had a right of free speech. Well, the President could, under that scenario, take unilateral, decisive action. It's an interesting theory.

I say, do it. Do it now, Mr. President. Arrest Newt Gingrich for sedition, declare him an enemy combatant, and park him in Guantanamo for the duration.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on January 19, 2012 at 12:17 PM · Report this
@10, yes, unfortunately, I agree. To wit:

@6, Newt feels about the rule of law precisely the way Obama (who violated the War Powers Act and ignores due process guarantees for American citizens when deciding who to assassinate) feels about it.
Posted by Ancient Sumerian on January 19, 2012 at 12:19 PM · Report this
biffp 13
That horseshittiest part is that he begins his little tirade about abolishing the third branch of government by pretending he's some historian who knows everything about the three branches.

I find it too scary to take any amusement in this. It feels like some Tea Party rehearsal of arguments for a facist state. Even having read some of the terrible Court decisions and the decisions that erased them as precedents, I lost a lot of faith in the institution with the Citizens United decision.
Posted by biffp on January 19, 2012 at 12:31 PM · Report this
@10: President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, explicitly preventing speech that "defamed" the President or Congress, clearly counter to the 1st Amendment. President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, censored anti-Union newspapers, and allowed civilians to be tried in military courts. By your reasoning, Newt Gingrich = Abraham Lincoln= John Adams = Obama.

I humbly submit that you may be oversimplifying.
Posted by Proteus on January 19, 2012 at 12:32 PM · Report this
What is the excerpt from? There is no link...
Posted by subwlf on January 19, 2012 at 12:57 PM · Report this
NaFun 17
Hey assholes @1 and @16 -

1st Google hit for "Gingrich Supreme Court" returns:…

Posted by NaFun on January 19, 2012 at 1:06 PM · Report this
Knat 18
A complete disregard for the system of checks and balances. Just like the Founding Fathers always intended!
Posted by Knat on January 19, 2012 at 1:56 PM · Report this
#14 - while virtually everyone today, with the benefit of hindsight, regards Adams and Lincoln as great men, that doesn't mean they didn't make some bad, and clearly unconstitutional, choices. Obama has done the same, and it remains to be seen how he'll be remembered a hundred years from now. I would respectfully suggest that the fact that they violated the consitution doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about future presidents doing it, too, in ways we may not be as comfortable with.
Posted by catsnbanjos on January 19, 2012 at 1:56 PM · Report this
the idiot formerly known as kk 20
@10 and @12: Yes, Obama and Gingrich are the same. Now take your medicine and have a nice, long nap, and the nurse will change your straitjackets when you're awake.
Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk on January 19, 2012 at 1:57 PM · Report this
OuterCow 21
@20 That's right, I remember stating "Obama and Gingrich are the same person and I believe they would make the exact same decisions in all circumstances". Fuck you, you Obamabot trash, what I was doing was pointing out the hypocrisy of critizing Gingrich for his saying he'd ignore the Supreme Court when at the same time Paul really doesn't seem to give a fuck that Obama has violated the Constitution. Just to repeat, cuz plenty of people seem to need help with this, I'm not saying Obama is the same as the Republican candidates, I'm saying (maybe get out your pen for future reference) that my objection is that he is not different enough.
Posted by OuterCow on January 19, 2012 at 3:06 PM · Report this
OuterCow 22
Seriously though, all ya'll Obama supporters really seem to have a hard time not simplifying/lying "not different enough" into "exactly the same." It almost seems like some people might be conciously trying to strawman my point away.
Posted by OuterCow on January 19, 2012 at 3:11 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 23
@ 17, since when is it asshole to ask a blog to post links? That's SOP.

@ OuterCow, I think we can see that Gingrich is talking about something much broader than the "War Powers Act," which has never been tested to see if THAT is actually constitutional (every president has ignored it since it passed, and Congress has let them do it), or the death of someone under arms (which also happens when a lot when people are standing off against the police).
Posted by Matt from Denver on January 19, 2012 at 3:27 PM · Report this
@19: I agree that we should continue to be concerned when any president, even one we voted for, willfully violates the Constitution. I know I am. I take exception to the characterization of every incident of this happening being equivalent. Not because I'm eager to make exceptions for my own candidate, but because I don't think painting with such a broad brush helps anything. Context matters.

Anyway, I've been informed by @22, that I'm merely beating up a strawman. The reason OuterCow mentions predator drone strikes every single time some candidate other than Obama receives criticism for reckless disregard for the Constitution is not because he's belaboring the weak thesis that all options before us are fundamentally the same, but because, uh, because "Fuck you, Obamabot!"

Truly dazzling polemic, that.
Posted by Proteus on January 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM · Report this
venomlash 26
Newt, you can disregard the Supreme Court's rulings only if you're then willing to beat a would-be assassin with your cane.
Posted by venomlash on January 19, 2012 at 4:00 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.