Newt Gingrich has now released his 21st Century Contract With America. The 1994 Contract with America was revolutionary. This Contract with America has some excellent ideas as well. There is one idea that is the best of all.
Which one is it?
It is the idea that we should abolish certain Federal Courts.
In the Constitution, the Courts were set up as the weakest of the three branches of government. Because of that, the founding fathers gave the Judges of the Federal Courts the protection of lifetime tenure.
In 1803, that changed. In the case of Madison v. Marbury, the Supreme Court gave itself the right to declare laws to be unconstitutional. This was a power grab that was incredible. No one called the Court on it.
Today, that one decision has transformed the Supreme Court into the most powerful of the three branches. The Federal Courts have run amuck, telling states to do things that are beyond the perview of the Courts. For example, states have been ordered to raise taxes, even though the legislative body of the state has refused.
States pass laws and even the people vote on referendum, which Federal Judges routinely enjoin, when entreated to do so by liberal lawyers.
Since Federal Judges do not have to answer to the people, there is no check and balance on their power. Gingrich has suggested one.
Let’s abolish some of the judgeships. Forget impeaching the judge. That takes too long and is a very difficult process. Just abolish the Court. Tell the judge it no longer exists and he should go home.
A radical idea?
It has been done before.
From the Daily Caller:
Gingrich continued, saying he would,
… take the most bizarre of judges and simply abolish their court. Tell them to go home. Those are the kind of steps. And I think they will lead to a very substantial national debate. There is nobody who has had the temerity now for almost 60 years to stand up and say that this is absurd.
No single person in America should have the right to rewrite the constitution, and we have created a 4:4 split in the court, so that Justice Kennedy becomes the one person constitutional convention, and whichever way he goes the constitution goes. That can’t possibly be the founding fathers’ intent.
Like much of what is in his new Contract, the judicial reform issue is not a new idea for Gingrich. Liberal websites have criticized him for these positions in the past. Additionally, he made some of these same points in an interview this summer with The American Spectator. (Note: This wasn’t something he always advocated. “I’ve gone from being critical of the judges to advocating a Jeffersonian response, which in some cases would actually abolish the judgeships,” he told The Daily Caller.)
Many conservatives complain about activist judges but do nothing. Gingrich has offered a good plan. Let’s just abolish these judgeships.
That is a good idea. Shall we start with the 9th Circuit?
Tags: 21st, america, century, contract, federal, gingrich, judges, newt, with
Permalink Reply by Debrajoe Smith-Beatty on Permalink Reply by Ray A. Gilmore on 
Permalink Reply by hijinx60 on 
Permalink Reply by starznbarz photography on Permalink Reply by Sandra Lee Smith on Permalink Reply by Barry Gabrielson on Permalink Reply by Nancy Oliver on Permalink Reply by Sunny on 
Permalink Reply by American Infidel on Sunny, Cain is indeed pro-life. Between Perry being soft on illegal immigration and Sharia law in America, and with his poll numbers falling like a boulder pushed off a cliff, Perry's people are getting desperate.
Getting back to the topic at hand, some questions: Wouldn't it be giving the President too much power, giving him or her the power to abolish certain courts? How would such power be used in the hands of a subsequent liberal President? Wouldn't they use this power to get rid of all conservatives on the bench by getting rid of the courts in which they work? Also, a small question, doesn't the name of the plaintiff go first? I always studied that case as Marbury v. Madison.
Permalink Reply by Scott Rutledge on
EXACTLY, my fellow American Infidel. All of your questions are spot on. We need to think through - very very carefully - the ramifications and implications of making such radical decisions. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution on purpose, specifically the way they did, so as to ensure a future "balance of power" and a commensurate system of "checks and balances" precisely so that a future President did NOT have all of that power to change our lives!
These are serious questions - the RIGHT questions - and I appreciate and respect your thoughtfulness on raising them.
Permalink Reply by Sandra Lee Smith on © 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
