iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Gingrich Says He Would Arrest Judges With Capitol Police Or U.S. Marshals

Gingrich Judges

First Posted: 12/18/11 12:10 PM ET Updated: 12/19/11 08:15 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- With just weeks to go before the Iowa Caucus, Newt Gingrich has turned his presidential campaign into a veritable megaphone warning about the dangers and elitism of America's judicial system. The former House Speaker held a half-hour phone call on Saturday during which he pledged to abolish courts and eliminated activist judges he believed were either outside the mainstream or infringing too deeply on the commander in chief's authority.

On Sunday, he followed that up by saying he would be willing to arrest a judge who he thought was out of line.

"If you had to," he said on CBS's "Face the Nation" when asked if he would send a Capitol Hill police officer to round up a judge, "or you would instruct the Justice Department to send the U.S. Marshal." His preference, he added, would be to impeach the judge in question.

That Gingrich is willing to resort to these measures isn't necessarily surprising to longtime watchers of the former Speaker. He has made criticism of the judiciary a rallying point for many years, peppering speeches to conservative audiences with calls to simply get rid of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Judge Fred Biery in San Antonio. As his prospects of actually winning the Iowa Caucus have improved, the rhetoric isn't being tempered. If anything, it's getting more fiery.

"You have an increasingly arrogant judiciary," he said on "Face the Nation." "The question is: Is there anything we the American people can do? The standard answer has been eventually we'll appoint good judges. I think that's inadequate. The Constitution promises a balance of the judicial branch, the executive branch and the legislative branch. The Federalist Papers say specifically the weakest of the three branches is the judiciary."

As he singled out the 9th Circuit, once more, for determining that it was unconstitutional for public schools to require the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and Biery for outlawing prayers in graduation ceremonies, the CBS show's host, Bob Scheiffer seemed frightened.

The appeals court had overturned Biery, Scheiffer noted. "The system worked."

"Mr. Speaker," Scheiffer said, "you know, the old saying in legal circles is that the Supreme Court is not last because it's right. It's right because it's last. There comes a point where you have to accept things as the law of the land. How does the president decide what is a good law -- and I'm going to obey the Supreme Court-- or what's a bad law and I'm just going to ignore it."

"I think it depends on the severity of the case," Gingrich replied. "I'm not suggesting that the Congress and the president review every decision. I'm suggesting that when there are decisions ... in which they are literally risking putting civil liberty rules in battlefields. I mean it is utterly irrational for the Supreme Court to take on its shoulders the defense to the United States. It is a violation of the Constitution."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- With just weeks to go before the Iowa Caucus, Newt Gingrich has turned his presidential campaign into a veritable megaphone warning about the dangers and elitism of America's judicial sy...
WASHINGTON -- With just weeks to go before the Iowa Caucus, Newt Gingrich has turned his presidential campaign into a veritable megaphone warning about the dangers and elitism of America's judicial sy...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 11,179
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (312 total)
  1 of 16  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
TXfemmom 01:35 PM on 12/18/2011
Does Newt believe he is going to be appointed Emperor? Has he ever read the Constitution? We have separation of power for a good reason. The most activist judges I know would be the Gang of Five on SCOTUS, who wrongly and corruptly granted "personhood" to their corporate owners. Is he going to start with them? Anyone who would pledge to do such a thing should never be considered for the Presidency of this  Read More...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sallybutt45
To thine own self be true.
11:23 PM on 04/05/2012
I wonder if he would "fire" the judges before he lowers the gas prices to $2.50 a gallon or after. Would he do it from earth or from his throne on the moon? He lives in LaLa land, grasping at straws and wondering how much he might be able to make on the lecture junket after he finally throws in the towel. I wouldn't take money to listen to this man, much less pay.
08:33 PM on 04/05/2012
Sam Stein leaping to the President's defense by dredging up comments made by private citizen Newt Gingrich should surpise no one. The inequality of the two megaphones aside, there are real, fundamental differences Mr. Stein fails to mention.
Firstly, the only thing "unprecedented" was a sitting President, expressing a strident opinion of a case under review by the court.
Secondly, the President's assertion that if the Court ruled AGAINST the Administration, it would represent an "unprecedented" exercise of judicial review, a precedent established in Marbury vs Madison over 200 years ago. This is a case any first year law student is familiar with, much less a purported constitutional professor
Thirdly, given an opportunity to walk back his comments the following day, the President did the opposite in a Q&A at the AP luncheon and Jay Carney refused to categorize Obama's remarks as anything but correct.
In an unscripted moment, the President,not once but twice, let slip extremely insightful remarks of his views of the Court. Coupled with his calling out the Court in his 2011 SOTU, regarding Citizens United, present a very disturbing pattern of a President who has very publicly pronounced his intention to bypass Congress wherever possible and to make his claimed "do nothing Congress" a focal point of his reelection campaign.
We have three, coequal branches of government. Yet a President who has publicly opined about our "messy democracy" seems to have some very fundamental problems with that, now that he sits atop the Executive branch.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kennyfasugbe
08:25 PM on 04/05/2012
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/05/11036798-gingrich-group-files-for-bankruptcy?lite
You can't make this stuff up, Newt's company is filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ksmith111
micro blog
08:12 PM on 04/05/2012
You have to wonder women who support these these re-thugs are thinking.
Shiral
I'll take Hope over the GOP ANY day
08:12 PM on 04/05/2012
Now, now, don't hold Gingrich to something he said only five months ago!
irony.

It's only okay if Gingrich would do it, but oh boy have we got trouble if OBAMA has so much as has a talk with the Chief Justice. Roberts left the White House as a free man, after all.

Hypocricy, thy name is Republican Candidate
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gloriousbastrd
Progressive all the way
07:58 PM on 04/05/2012
Newt see a opportunity and he's running with it.
07:57 PM on 04/05/2012
How much rope do these fools need ?
Or is it the fact of the matter that we have collectively lost our grip and
are no longer on the other end ?.

I wonder if we ever had but a strand of freedoms gossamer web in our clutches.

.Llamraf
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kye154
07:46 PM on 04/05/2012
This is one thing I will agree with Gingrich on. Here is just one example of a missed opportunity: Had president James Buchanan arrested Chief Justice Robert Taney on the Dred Scott decision in 1857, that all Blacks, whether slave or free, were not citizens of the United States and that they had no right to sue in Federal court. Had Buchanan moved to take Taney out, we would have never had the Civil War. Same with Obama and Roberts. Obama should have arrested the supreme court judges for the idiotic ruling they gave in the 2010 case if Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That was Obama's missed opportunity.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
troll516
It's Not My Fault - Obama 2012
07:24 PM on 04/05/2012
Hey HP the big difference is that Obama is President, Gingrich is not.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:34 PM on 04/05/2012
...and your point is?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
troll516
It's Not My Fault - Obama 2012
10:15 PM on 04/05/2012
Does it really need to be explained to you?
03:10 PM on 04/06/2012
How about Gingrich has no POWER.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nitwitsRus
my udder username is...
07:10 PM on 04/05/2012
has Scalia
gone inta hidin' yet?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
knott wrench
07:08 PM on 04/05/2012
Leave it to Newton to get a "Pass" from his GOP TP Buddies but Mitch Mcconnell is;

Whining about POTUS Obama and the US Supreme Court Justices.

How come its Ok for Newt to arrest "Activest Judges' but not Ok fro Mr. Obama to Voice his opinion.

Crybaby GOP TPers.
07:24 PM on 04/05/2012
Righties truly are the biggest frauds in the history of mankind.

If Obama had said that, they'd burn down the White House in protest.

Complete silence when Newt said it (except those that actually agreed with him)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
knott wrench
07:52 PM on 04/06/2012
True.
03:14 PM on 04/06/2012
Supreme Court is the nation's highest legal authority The President CANNOT arrest the members of the Supreme Court because he doesn't like their decisions. That is why we have the Supreme Court in the first place. Newt Gingrich is supposedly an educated man who has been in government for a good while now, and I believe that he is aware of all this. The BS that comes out of his mouth is just that, and he is full of it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
knott wrench
07:52 PM on 04/06/2012
True. But the Double Standard, is he say's what he did and Mitch McConnell and his "mob" don't say a word, POTUS Obama says something to the court and Mitch gets all flustered.
06:55 PM on 04/05/2012
Defending Obama's inappropriate remarks by digging up inappropriate remarks by others is
typical Obama deflection and distraction. What others said years ago is irrelevant. When
the individual mandate is criticized, he deflects to Romney and the Heritage Foundation, when
Solyndra went broke, he blamed Geo. Bush, when Fast and Furious was exposed, he blamed
Geo. Bush and on and on. Not that facts matter but the individual mandate is constitutional in
a state, Geo. Bush rejected Solyndra's application, and the gun operation under Bush was in
conjunction with the government of Mexico and was ended as soon as it didn't work. Does
Obama EVER take responsibility for anything other than "killing" Osama?
07:26 PM on 04/05/2012
First of all, Newt said that months ago.....not years.

Second, Righties have cried about "activist judges" for decades....so why Is Obama "Hitler" for the same thing?

That's not deflection at all.

It's asking why you have a double-standard.

NOBODY deflects like Righties do.

Look at when Rush got busted for being a sexist. All Righties did was CRY about Maher.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
birdrail
06:52 PM on 04/05/2012
The repubs alsways cry about the Democrats wanting an activist court. Well the times have sure changed.

And the chaNGE HAPPENED in two of the the most important decisions ever. Bush v Gore, CU,

and now this one. Scalia and Thomas and Kennedy have seen them all
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
birdrail
06:48 PM on 04/05/2012
for once I agree totally with newt gingrich
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MinisterMelinda
Never lose sight; Keep up the fight!
06:42 PM on 04/05/2012
Oh! Newt...you're still here?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
knott wrench
07:11 PM on 04/05/2012
I think he'll be around till the Tampa, Fl. Convention doing his best to grab attention the only way he knows how:

Making outrageous statements like he just did.
03:17 PM on 04/06/2012
It actually is a bit sad to see a man who once had a lot of power and influence reduced to a laughing-stock politician who can't see when he is finished.