Comments on: Newt’s Constitutional Madness

By: steven birn

steven birn — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:55:32 +0000

There’s something to be said for looking at judicial reforms and there’s something to be said for Congress pushing back against judicial activism. But I’m not sure Newt is going about it the right way. It’s the Senate that confirms these judges and perhaps it’s time for them to take the job a little more seriously than they do right now. For the past 50+ years, it’s been mostly Senators who have decided who becomes a Federal judge not the President. Trial court judges for the most part are picked by Senators, they aren’t scrutinized and usually end up on the court without question. If Newt wants to go after the Senate, that’s fine. But it’s not really what he’s doing.

Having said that, Newt is bringing up an important issue and in the very least we’re talking about it.

By: rjjrdq

rjjrdq — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 06:51:14 +0000

Give him a few days. He’ll “clarify” his position.

By: theCL

theCL — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:14:32 +0000

When leviathan is granted more power, those that grant it shouldn’t be surprised when that power is one day wielded against them.

Bingo! That’s why I don’t support granting powers to politicians regardless of what “party” they belong to. Power corrupts.

By: bill

bill — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:02:08 +0000

“…when all 3 branches cooperate to disregard the Constitution, I don’t see how any checks and balances truly work.”

in that scenario our vote would be the next to last ‘check’…n’ est-ce pas?…b

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 02:56:45 +0000

Following Newt’s path would likely be yet another slippery slop. What happens when there is a regressive POTUS and Congress, and the SCOTUS, again, confirms that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right? When leviathan is granted more power, those that grant it shouldn’t be surprised when that power is one day wielded against them.

By: Country Thinker

Country Thinker — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 21:35:27 +0000

And ultimately, LD, everything depends on getting the right people for the job. When that happens, the problem goes away. I simply don’t see how compensating for poor judicial work can be cured by shifting the power to substandard members of Congress.

By: LD Jackson

LD Jackson — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 17:50:04 +0000

I think it is a very delicate between the three branches of government. It is certainly not a good when that balance is tipped in the favor of any of the three branches. I do think there have been times when the Judicial Branch has asserted itself beyond the limits placed on it by the Constitution, but as you said, it would be a very dangerous thing to neuter them completely. Again, it is a very delicate balance.

By: Country Thinker

Country Thinker — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:30:27 +0000

It’s a very tricky situation to be sure, Teresa. I’m not sure how best to have the Constitution respected. The bottom line – and perhaps I should have spelled this out – is when all 3 branches cooperate to disregard the Constitution, I don’t see how any checks and balances truly work.

By: Country Thinker

Country Thinker — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:28:37 +0000

I agree. I don’t like a lot of interpretations the Court has made over the years, but I can’t imagine Congress without a check.

By: Teresa

Teresa — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 02:27:09 +0000

I don’t agree with arresting the judge but there has to be some other way to make an example of judges who do not follow the Constitution. Maybe three strikes and your out? If the judge is brought before Congress three times for serious offenses because they are judicial activists or misinterpreting the Constitution in order to promote an agenda then they should be forced to resign. Since Obamacare is unconstitutional, regardless of the ruling, I don’t think the example you gave is a good one. We have never been forced to buy something just because we’re breathing. Obamacare goes beyond the authority of the commerce clause.