Curmudgeonly & Skeptical presents Boned Jello: Newt's good idea

Saturday, September 30, 2006

Newt's good idea

Today's undeniably true statement that is unassailable by men of truth, reason, and of good will, and any who try may be freely beat about the head with rolled newspapers, spat upon, and called "Liberal," without fear of the legal retribution. But you can't leave any marks.

''Supreme Court decisions that are "so clearly at variance with the national will" should be overridden by the other branches of government, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says.
"What I reject, out of hand, is the idea that by five to four, judges can rewrite the Constitution, but it takes two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate and three-fourths of the states to equal five judges," Gingrich said during a Georgetown University Law Center conference on the judiciary.
"Gingrich Urges Overriding Supreme Court"

Rodger the Real King of France 9/30/2006 02:12:00 PM 8 Comments

"If the number of Islamic terror attacks continues at the current rate, candlelight vigils will soon be the number-one cause of global warming. "
Argus Hamilton

8 comments:

Anonymous said...: And this, friends and neighbors, is WHY things were so specifically identified in the Constitution as to powers. These courts are only to decide cases based on the laws written BY the legislature, not decide on the validity of same. It is almost unbelievable that this has not been said, and acted on, before.; 9/30/06, 4:10 PM
Anonymous said...: I have been concerned about an over reaching court for years nine people in black robes that can smash the will of the people. I understand if the people vote for a law that clearly violates the rights of a minority there must be a remedy. but there should also be a remedy for crazy decisions like Row and the Texas case where the court throw out there sodomy laws which were clearly constitutional.

Homosexuals are not a legitimate minority. Conduct does not creat a minority and privacy is not absolute. The state has the authority to protect it's society and to set reasonable standards.; 9/30/06, 4:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr Jack Hamilton,

To quote: "Conduct does not create a minority and privacy is not absolute."

Perhaps this was obvious to everybody but me. You have given me something to think about, ponder, digest.

Thanks.; 9/30/06, 5:54 PM
Josh Fahrni-Barn Army Dog Catcher said...: Can I be honest? With the progressively progressive (haha) Generations of Americans being born and bread every day, in 15 years we'll be a moral mirror of The Netherlands. I hate that Judge's can do it, but when all of the idiot school kids yuckin' up the 'Kill Bush' shirts are voters, and it's 3/4 Dems in the house and Senate, they'll be dicks and impose a ban on killing hippies.

Heyo!

Long way to go for a killin' hippies joke, but I find myself in between College Games.; 9/30/06, 7:52 PM
Rodger the Real King of France said...: You're pretty damned close there Josh. Democrats, including Herr Clinton, embrace the "Third Way" concept of one world gummint.; 9/30/06, 8:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous at 4:10--you might want to take a look at a particular Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison. That case, decided 1803, has been the law of the land ever since.

The Judicial Branch is equal to both the Executive and Legislative. It has the final word on whether or not something is legal.

If you don't like that, I suggest you start ginning up a constitutional amendment that would better suit your preferences. But be prepared to fail, because it's not going anywhere, nor is Gingrich's proposal. Sometimes that man can be really, really stupid.; 9/30/06, 9:51 PM
Rodger the Real King of France said...: ''The bottom line is that Marbury v. Madison, with all its imperfections and contradictions, continues to warrant our attention.

''It created a model of judicial independence. It established the fundamental architecture of constitutional review. It planted the seed for the political questions doctrine, and enriched the separation of power principle through Marshall's emphasis on the distinction between ministerial acts--which judges could review--and discretionary political acts which it could or should not.''

Bill Quick's assessment seems a reasonable one. While I tremble at the thought of arguing with someone qualified to call Newt Gingrich stupid, I think there might be room for his case within Marbury-Madison afterall.; 9/30/06, 10:57 PM
Kevin said...: The problem with our system of government was expressed back when it was formed: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other." - John Adams.

While I'm an atheist, I understand his intent. (I think it's quite possible to be moral without being religious, but not vice-versa.)

The men and women who rise to high office in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Those who make it to the Supreme Court are vetted not only by the Chief Executive, but also by the Senate. They are supposed to be where they are by merit. Yet when both the executive and legislative branches are filled with people whose morality is (at a minimum) questionable, should we be surprised that the Supreme Court can have five of nine members who do not honor their oaths either?

The problem isn't with the mechanism, it's with the components. Our system of government is for a people we no longer are.

And it shows.; 10/1/06, 12:39 AM

Saturday, September 30, 2006

Newt's good idea

8 comments:

Post a Comment