President Gingrich Would Ignore Supreme Court Rulings

Comments

1
Charming man. Can we get a link to that statement?
2
Conservatives, rugged constitutionalists! When it suits them!
3
He has to get the nomination
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.
5
and the constitution cries in the corner
6
What about "Rule of Law" do you not understand, Newt?
7
Things you can say when you know there is zero chance of ever being in a position to deliver on your promise.
8
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.
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.
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?
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.
12
@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.
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.
14
@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.
15
Not to defend Newt, but the Constitution doesn't actually say exactly what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. That the it can strike down laws is basically just a custom that everyone has agreed to since the court first used the power in Marbury v. Madison in 1802.
16
What is the excerpt from? There is no link...
17
Hey assholes @1 and @16 -

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan…

18
A complete disregard for the system of checks and balances. Just like the Founding Fathers always intended!
19
#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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
24
Gingrich is apparently running for Emperor of the United States. We already had one, and he was far, far better than Gingrich could ever be. I don't think we need another Emperor.

It is true that Obama has taken actions that seriously weaken several key Constitutional rights. I wish he had not. It's been a trend of the executive branch for a long time to try to gain more power and to weaken certain rights of the people. I'd like it reversed, but neither party is offering that as an option. I am glad that Obama is, at least, not trying to abolish a vital check on the system and creating a war between the branches of government.
25
@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.
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.