"I would instruct the national security official in a Gingrich administration to ignore the Supreme Court on issues of national security," he told the conservatives gathering at the Values Voters Summit.

The party of law and order.

Hasn't Obama ordered the Justice Dept to not enforce laws that Obama disagrees with?

MeinRS6: Hasn't Obama ordered the Justice Dept to not enforce laws that Obama disagrees with?

The Justice Dept. is a part of the Executive Branch, which Obama leads. The Supreme Court is part of the Judicial Branch, which the President can only nominate people to run.

Does that help you?

/this ninth-grade civics lesson shouldn't be necessary to American adults, but you are a right-winger, so I understand your confusion about how government works.

Confabulat: MeinRS6: Hasn't Obama ordered the Justice Dept to not enforce laws that Obama disagrees with?

The Justice Dept. is a part of the Executive Branch, which Obama leads. The Supreme Court is part of the Judicial Branch, which the President can only nominate people to run.

Does that help you?

/this ninth-grade civics lesson shouldn't be necessary to American adults, but you are a right-winger, so I understand your confusion about how government works.

You need to read the article again, sweetheart.

MeinRS6: Right. Talking about what the president does is silly compared to Farklibs that obsess about Palin 24/7.

Ummmm... I think many of the President's supporters, on this board and out in the real world, complain pretty loudly about GITMO, Afghanistan, not breaking up the banks into smaller pieces, giving in on the tax cuts for the top 1%, NOT ignoring laws and going after pot dispensaries...

We see his faults and address them. We can also see that he can't get half that sh*t done because the Senate requires 60 votes and when he did talk about GITMO the people you seem to love were screaming about how the terrorists were going to break out of SuperMax prisons to rape and murder our children. Not to mention the tax "debate". All or nothing from the Republicans.

So, let's address Newt. He's such an inglorious cum dumpster that he doesn't even have a legitimate campaign staff. He writes "history" books about how Jesus won the Revolution. The sonofab*tch can't even stand by his own words that Republicans went too far in their railing against Social Security. He's a weak sack of sh*t, and that's really the point here.

But, let's talk about how everyone blindly loves Obama and never criticizes his actions. That's a much better narrative, right?

Dwight_Yeast: Nice to see that you're all giving the troll the attention he so desperately desires.

Too bad its not the attention he deserves. Hard to transmit a swift kick in the ass over the internet, though.

In before b-b-but Obam...

Aw shiat.

MeinRS6: Confabulat: The Justice Dept. is a part of the Executive Branch, which Obama leads. The Supreme Court is part of the Judicial Branch, which the President can only nominate people to run....this ninth-grade civics lesson shouldn't be necessary to American adults, but you are a right-winger, so I understand your confusion about how government works.

You need to read the article again, sweetheart.

[reads article]

Nope. Everything in the article simply reinforces Confabulat's basic point, which you of course had to ignore, because you can't possibly refute it. In particular, s/he's dead on about the larger inability of right-wingers to understand the separation of powers and judicial review, as in: "Reps. Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul, businessman Herman Cain and former senator Rick Santorum have all denounced the court and offered solutions, such as banning it from reviewing certain topics and allowing Congress to cast aside its rulings." While Congress can address issues the SCOTUS wants it to or propose a Constitutional Amendment to overturn specific rulings, it cannot simply ignore the Court. Neither can the Executive Branch. In fact, the Judicial branch has a tool with which to order specific enforcement if asked: the Writ of Mandamus.

Fortunately, we really don't have to worry about any President Gingriches provoking a constitutional showdown any time soon.

Dwight_Yeast: SilentStrider: Too bad its not the attention he deserves. Hard to transmit a swift kick in the ass over the internet, though.

I recommend the Ignore feature. Trolls thrive on attention; take that away from them and they have nothing.

Ah, I was wondering why there were supposed to be 27 comments, and only 15 were showing. Y'all don't have Minors Sex on ignore yet? It's really easy, and nothing of value will be lost to you.

NewportBarGuy: Dwight_Yeast: SilentStrider: Too bad its not the attention he deserves. Hard to transmit a swift kick in the ass over the internet, though.

I recommend the Ignore feature. Trolls thrive on attention; take that away from them and they have nothing.

[i53.tinypic.com image 450x273]

ZOMG! SNOOPY FOR REALZ!!

Gonz: Ah, I was wondering why there were supposed to be 27 comments, and only 15 were showing. Y'all don't have Minors Sex on ignore yet? It's really easy, and nothing of value will be lost to you.

I just added him after about 8 of the first 10 comments were his idiocy or someone responding to it. The thread went from 32 to 19 comments. I don't know why I waited this long.

Well, it's not like he reads ANY legal documents -- his marriage license(s), the constitution, the lawsuit against the LASIK doctor who gave his wife those Manson Lamps.

I wish Newtie enjoyed giving oral as much as he loves getting oral. He'd never say another word.

And Newt Gingrich doesn't compare to any other past presidential candidate because every other one of them would have had the decency, once forced to resign both their seat in the House and their office of Speaker of the House, to retire from politics. The other guys' had a sense of shame, even as politicians.

Newtie only has a sense of himself. Oh, and a sense of his penis.

He's whining about "The Roberts Court?" Wasn't John Roberts appointed by Bush 43?

Yep. Wat.

In a recent thread someone posted an excellent "Newt Gingrich" Fark label that had nothing but Callista's eyes on it. I can't find it or I'd post it in here.

Serious Black: RolandGunner: As much as I dislike Gingrich on a personal level, he made an interesting point here.

Here he is on Face the Nation (new window) giving Bob Schieffer a lesson on the division of powers which, contrary to Schieffer's opinion, does not grant the Supreme Court primacy over the other branches.

Isn't it funny how conservatives claim that they are strict constructionists while they are trying to use the power of judicial review that is strictly not in the Constitution to nullify laws that they disagree with?

To be fair, there is one Republican candidate who wants to remove federal court review due to SCOTUS rulings he disagrees with.

It's RON PAUL and the subject is abortion law. He proudly announces on his own Issues web page that he wants to amend the Constitution to remove ALL federal court review on ALL abortion laws because he can't find any other way to reverse Roe v. Wade. He can't get his religion into law any other way so, for him, the ends justify the means.

Giltric: The left would throw out the entire constitution out of spite if it would piss off Gingrich or any generic conservative.


Party Uber Alles.....

/Take my wife property and papers, please

We have two penalties on the play.

False equivalency and BSABSVR.

The false equivalency is accepted.

15 yard penalty from the spot and loss of down.