Gingrich urges overriding Supreme Court

[Ron Burgundy]

AP - 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.

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.

It takes approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the 50 states to adopt an amendment to the Constitution, the government's bedrock document.

Gingrich, a Republican who represented a district in Georgia, noted that overwhelming majorities in Congress had reaffirmed the Pledge of Allegiance, and most of the public believes in its right to recite it.

As such, he said, "It would be a violation of the social compact of this country for the Supreme Court to decide otherwise and would lead, I hope, the two other branches to correct the court."

In 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled that the pledge was unconstitutional when recited in public schools because of the reference to God. The Supreme Court in 2004 reversed that decision on a technicality, but the case has been revived.

Gingrich said "the other two branches have an absolute obligation to render independent judgment" in cases that are "at variance with the national will."

He spoke at Thursday's panel discussion on relations between the executive, judicial and legislative branches of government.

Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who spoke on the same panel, noted the high court's 5-4 decision settling the contested 2000 presidential election in favor of Republican George W. Bush.

"What if Al Gore had said I don't agree?" Daschle asked. "In a sense, what we did was put the court in the position of the American people. We were giving the court the power to make the decision for the American people based on their best judgment and I'm not challenging the judgment. I accept it, too, even though I disagree."

___

On the Net:

Georgetown conference: Conference on the State of the Judiciary 2006: Program

[motivez]

I hope this makes some of the people on this forum who say he's their first choice -- or are considering voting for him when he runs, think twice.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

I hope this makes some of the people on this forum who say he's their first choice -- or are considering voting for him when he runs, think twice.

I think he makes sense. Why should our Supreme Court be able to re-write the constitution. It isn't their job. Their job is to interpret it, not make up law as they see fit.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think he makes sense. Why should our Supreme Court be able to re-write the constitution. It isn't their job. Their job is to interpret it, not make up law as they see fit.

That hits the nail on the head. Thats why we have the other branches so when one screws up the others can pull on the reigns.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think he makes sense. Why should our Supreme Court be able to re-write the constitution. It isn't their job. Their job is to interpret it, not make up law as they see fit.

I disagree that they're rewriting it. I think they are interpreting it.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

That hits the nail on the head. Thats why we have the other branches so when one screws up the others can pull on the reigns.

The court as it stands, as totally undemocratic and able to go against the will of the people, is the only check this country has against a dictatorship of the masses. If the SC's decisions were negated by other branches when they're not popular, it would remove a valuable check in our system of government. While there are legitimate concerns about the SC becoming too powerful and not answerable to anyone, judicial restraint and threats to remove SC jurisdiction temper the power of the SC adequately, IMO.

The SC knows its power to interpret the Constitution is derived from everone believing they can, not because the Constitution says so. They also know Congress controls their budget and the President controls the guns, so they have a built in incentive to not go power crazy because they could be bitch slapped.

With this tension and balance in mind, I think any unpopular decisions of the court are simply evidence of the system working the way it was supposed to. Offending people by removing "god" from the pledge or whatever is not a good enough reason to turn the system on its head.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

The court as it stands, as totally undemocratic and able to go against the will of the people, is the only check this country has against a dictatorship of the masses. If the SC's decisions were negated by other branches when they're not popular, it would remove a valuable check in our system of government. While there are legitimate concerns about the SC becoming too powerful and not answerable to anyone, judicial restraint and threats to remove SC jurisdiction temper the power of the SC adequately, IMO.

The SC knows its power to interpret the Constitution is derived from everone believing they can, not because the Constitution says so. They also know Congress controls their budget and the President controls the guns, so they have a built in incentive to not go power crazy because they could be bitch slapped.

With this tension and balance in mind, I think any unpopular decisions of the court are simply evidence of the system working the way it was supposed to. Offending people by removing "god" from the pledge or whatever is not a good enough reason to turn the system on its head.

Thats a good post but we have a system in place that even allows the courts to be kept in check

[Donkey®]

I don't see them as re-writing the Constitution to begin with. I think the system is working just fine.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I don't see them as re-writing the Constitution to begin with. I think the system is working just fine.

... until they pass some activist GOP decision that has no business being considered from the constitution

[ethyl]

I haven't had any major disagreements with any SC decisions other than Roe vs. Wade and the eminent domain decision. I'd like to see the legislature hold back funds from any states or cities that use the new eminent domain rules but it's been a few months since I've heard anything about it.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by JaJae

... until they pass some activist GOP decision that has no business being considered from the constitution

Things like the due process clause of the constitution and the establishment clause are inherently vague. You could be the biggest literalist in the world and still not know exactly what they mean. They necessarily have to be interpreted. So if the SC makes a ruling based on their interpretation of those things, I don't see how you could call it "rewriting" the constitution when it's patent interpretation. I don't even think Gingrich himself believes the court is rewriting instead of interpreting. I think he's using the "rewriting" language as a rhetorical tool because he knows the masses will eat it up.

[lew]

I have no problem with any of this. The SC is, constitutionally, the weakest part of the government. Not the strongest - which is what it is now.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think he makes sense. Why should our Supreme Court be able to re-write the constitution. It isn't their job. Their job is to interpret it, not make up law as they see fit.

What has been re-written?

Also, I honestly don't see how anyone could claim that the amendment process is too troublesome...If 3/4s of the country doesn't agree with something, why should 50.000001% of the country be able to over-ride that large of a percentage of Americans CONSTITUTIONAL rights?

Lew I am surprised to see you support this...if this isn't a classic case of "tyranny of the majority" I don't know what is

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

What has been re-written?

Also, I honestly don't see how anyone could claim that the amendment process is too troublesome...If 3/4s of the country doesn't agree with something, why should 50.000001% of the country be able to over-ride that large of a percentage of Americans CONSTITUTIONAL rights?

Lew I am surprised to see you support this...if this isn't a classic case of "tyranny of the majority" I don't know what is

I'm fully against majority rule and democracy. But I'm also fully against an oligarchy. There are constitutional limits on the Supreme Court and the Court is more subject to Congress, than Congress to the Court. While I'm not sure what exactly Gingrich is proposing, I am for the principle that the Supreme Court is the weakest of the three branches of government, with Congress being the strongest.

Right now, it would seem that the Executive and Supreme Court are fighting for supremacy, while Congress abdicates its authority almost daily.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I disagree that they're rewriting it. I think they are interpreting it.

they dont have that right though. They are breaking the Constitution as much as the President and Congress when they push warrantless wiretapping.

The Constitution created 3 similar groups, not the SC as ruler of everything.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

they dont have that right though. They are breaking the Constitution as much as the President and Congress when they push warrantless wiretapping.

The Constitution created 3 similar groups, not the SC as ruler of everything.

congress can impeach judges
we can pass amendments
the executives decide who comprises the SC

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

congress can impeach judges
we can pass amendments
the executives decide who comprises the SC

Yet once a judge decides something, that is the strongest law possible. It is very difficult for another judge to overturn their interpretation. And impossible for Congress to overturn it.

It is easy to overturn a law passed by Congress or an executive order.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Yet once a judge decides something, that is the strongest law possible. It is very difficult for another judge to overturn their interpretation. And impossible for Congress to overturn it.

It is easy to overturn a law passed by Congress or an executive order.

amendments...and its hard for judges to overturn? Look at the liberal (republican appointed) activist court of the past, and also look at today 4 conservatives who are just waiting for one more conservative to be added and trust me A LOT of things would get over-turned very quickly

(If Bork had passed...it'd be Scalia, Thomas, Bork leading Roberts and Alito...thats 5 votes and this country would be MUCH different...)

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

amendments...and its hard for judges to overturn? Look at the liberal (republican appointed) activist court of the past,

How many previous rulings did they over turn ? Look how long it took to overturn the Seperate but equal bs.

[Thorgrim]

Seperate but equal was case law, not "activism" or an overturn...

there is a huge difference