Newt Gingrich spoke this morning about how he would curb judges’ power.
In an interview on CBS’ Face the Nation, Gingrich said it was “inadequate” to wait for the appointment of good judges to change the judicial system, and suggested that judges should be impeached.
Speaking about Gingrich’s plan, Bob Schieffer noted that Gingrich proposed that “congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before Congress and hold a Congressional hearing” and then asked Gingrich, “How would you enforce that? Would you send the Capitol Police down to arrest him?
“Sure, if you had to,” Gingrich responded. “Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshal. Let’s take the case of Judge Biery. I think he should be asked to explain a position that radical. How could he say he’s going to jail the superintendent over the word benediction and invocation?”
Great idea too! I mean really, how in the hell did we come up with such a fallible system as 9 people deciding the fate of millions? Who are these mini-Gods that over over rule a majority of the voters vote? Can you imagine of having that type of power? But then again he only wants to get rid of the ones he does not like!
This is a difficult call. One of the advantages of a judiciary is that they can overturn the will of the majority when they get out of line. There are some issues that are simply not the business of anyone else, so no matter how many people vote on it, it still doesn’t matter.
The three branches should have more checks and balances against one another.
This business with Congress not getting budgets done on time, the unilateral positioning of the SCOTUS as final arbiter of all things Constitutional, the run-away Tsaring of the executive branch…these are all examples of things that need the other branches to step in and say, “do your job!” or “this isn’t right” or “enough already!”, etc.
The founders made one fatal assumption while trying to make a system that was forward flexible: that an average number of reasonable men would remain in the political gene pool.
Not quite. They can label an enacted law as unconstitutional or unenforceable, but it does not remove it from the books. Their opinion only allows anyone who is subjected to punishment under that law legal recourse, and would still have to go to trial to get a judge’s ruling, honoring the High Court’s precedent.
The judiciary cannot make, change, delete or otherwise alter an law passed by Congress and signed by the POTUS.
What to do about them? First thing is stop the lifetime appointment bit. As far as I’m concerned, they should go thru reviews and re’appointments.
And I don’t know why they should be immune to impeachment. This places them in a position they are above the law, and in a lifetime position to boot. Absurd really.