I would like to make one of Mitt Romney's $10,000 wagers with Newt Gingrich. I bet that if the United States Supreme Court were to declare President Obama's health care legislation unconstitutional that there will be no cries from him or any other conservatives that the decision was made by "a bunch of elite, activist, unelected, unaccountable, arrogant judges thwarting the will of the majority and substituting their agenda for that of Congress". It's a bet I can't lose. "Judicial activism" is in the eye of the beholder. For conservatives it simply is a decision with which they do not agree.
Newt Gingrich, who touts himself to be the great historian (not lobbying but giving historical advice to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae), suggests that judges should be called before Congress (and physically dragged in if necessary) to explain controversial rulings. First Newt, you might want to begin by reading the opinions which have the explanation right there in black and white. They call them "judicial opinions" because the reasoning for the decision is set forth in great detail. I am willing to double-down on my bet -- that Newt has never read the opinion by Judge Biery in Texas that he is constantly railing against. Most criticism of judicial opinions focuses upon the result and not the reasoning, and I suspect Gingrich has read a squib or a headline but not the whole opinion.
But Newt has this idea that judicial rulings are supposed to be popular, at least with him, and that if they are not, something should be done about or to the judges who render them. For instance, those judges who ruled against school segregation in those states that still wanted it should be removed, or at least their budgets cut and their lights turned off. Rulings of judges in favor of criminal defendants, gay marriage, abortion rights, and separation of church and state are not popular with conservatives, so off with their robes! Gingrich apparently has this view that judicial independence and separation of powers are some quaint old relics that have seen better days.
He wants to abolish courts and eliminate judges that do not rule as he wished. By the way Mr. Historian, the president does not abolish jurisdictions or subpoena anyone including judges to appear before Congress; Congress does that. But my all-time favorite is the idea of having Congress decide what is constitutional -- be a Super-Supreme Court. Here's how that would work. Congress would enact a law. The Supreme Court would declare it unconstitutional. Congress would then decide whether or not it is constitutional. And wouldn't the current Congress be the idyllic place to decide whether or not its own legislation is constitutional, assuming that is -- that they pass any legislation. They can't agree on the lunch menu.
The Constitution grants federal judges life tenure with good behavior subject to impeachment for serious violations -- not disappointing or unpopular rulings. The judiciary is the last branch of government for which the public has respect. Leave it to the politicians to bring it down to their level.
Ron Paul, perceived by many as a respecter of individual freedom, has nevertheless advocated, as recently as last November, that Congress take the illegal action of removing jurisdiction from the federal courts to review cases that the far right doesn't want held to Constitutional scrutiny.
The Conservative Caucus advocates an additional illegal disabling of the Constitution, advocating the removal of the court's authority to rectify violations of the Bill of Rights by state and local governments.
Rick Santorum and others have implied that religious law is a "higher law" that supersedes the Constitution.
And Robert Bork, the notorious disrespecter of Constitutional rights who is consistently portrayed by the mainstream media as a "victim" of Democrats, has advocated giving Congress the power to overturn Supreme Court rulings by simple majority vote -- effectively giving the federal government unlimited and unaccountable power.
The modern GOP has mounted an entire battery of dangerous attacks on the judiciary and the Constitution. Newt is merely the most flamboyant about it.
(Newt's a/k/a is also The GingGrinch who Stole Christmas - "You're a Mean One, Mr. GingGrinch")
Yeah, I didn't think so easy. This political town is full of men with big mouths and no guts or principles.
Likewise, I have issues with some SCOTUS rulings - but I don't think that the system itself is faulty - except for the process of Senate hearings (I refer to Federalist Papers #76) and the fact that both sides are determined to seat the youngest possible nominees. I'd much rather see older, more experienced judges on the highest Court. And there are mechanisms built into our system to change those rulings we find to be discordant with American government.
Government should be working FOR the People, all the People. It's got some kind of gum in the gears, and we really need to clean it up a little. Showing respect for everyone involved (from Congress to the Voters) would be a good start.
Gingrich and other modern day Republicans seem to believe they are the arbitrators of the law or in other words can dispense with the law when it is inconvenient or defies their ideology and justify it by simply attaching the word "liberal" to it. Therein the more this idea gets bandied about without challenge or question, the more uncertain the future of our court system and the independence of the judiciary becomes regardless who is in power, notwithstanding Newt's double standards.