Newt Gingrich's Radical Views on the Courts
1 year ago
Newt needs to read the Constitution again
This Sunday Newt Gingrich doubled down on his radical rhetoric regarding federal judges and the Supreme Court. In a conference call last week Newt said, "Are we forced for a lifetime to keep someone on the bench who is so radically anti-American that they are a threat to the fabric of the country?” Gingrich asked. “What kind of judge says you’ll go to jail if the word ‘invocation’ is used? If this isn’t a speech dictatorship, I’d like you to show me what one looks like."
Gingrich’s main complaint is that federal courts are circumventing the will of the people. Newt continues to focus on a Texas court’s decision to ban school prayer which was subsequently overturned anyway. As president, Newt supports arresting judges and bringing them before Congress to testify about the decisions President Newt doesn’t like.
For those unfamiliar with the three branches of government and the U.S. Constitution it might not seem like Newt is that radical. He supports a best of three policy where if the executive branch an the legislative branches are on one side of a political debate and the courts are on the other, then best of three wins. The National Journal calls this the “rocks, paper, scissors” philosophy. Gingrich explains his "interpretation" of the Constitution saying, "[h]ere's the key--it's always two out of three. If the president and the Congress say the court is wrong, in the end the court would lose. If the Congress and the court say the president is wrong, in the end the president would lose. And if the president and the court agreed, the Congress loses. The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution very specifically in a Montesquieu spirit of the laws to have a balance of power, not to have a dictatorship by any one of the three branches."
This is a ridiculously stupid idea and Newt should know better than to promote such nonsense. There is a reason why we don’t have a best of three policy. Not only is there this entire concept known as separation of powers between the three co-equal branches of government, but two of the branches are elected. This means that if for some reason the American people elect crazy people to the White House and Congress (is this really a far fetched possibility? cough…Congressman Louie Gohmert), then those political whims control important outcomes in federal law.
It’s not like federal courts and the Supremes are responsible for desegregating schools and public spaces against the whims of the people and Congress in our history or anything….oh wait.
Check out former Republican front runner Newt Gingrich on 'Face the Nation' below: