Although, to be fair, I don't give a fark what Bush era AGs think.

And the notion of bringing judges before Congress like a schoolchild being brought before the principal to me is a little bit troubling.

Entertaining as that sounds, it's a really awful idea. Judicial review, even in its pitiful present form, is one of the few ways that the government is actually held accountable to the Constitution.

What does he propose as an alternative? A congressional honor system?

vernonFL: Extreme Federal Court? Do all the judges drink Mountain Dew?

No replacing them with this guy

If there was any doubt the man was a Totalitarian, this pretty much does away with said doubt. He wants absolute control, and the power to ignore the courts when he doesn't like how they rule.

Yep, the court should just be a bunch of rubber stamp kangaroos, just like his lackies, er, party members in congress.

Barricaded Gunman: Although, to be fair, I don't give a fark what Bush era AGs think.

^^^^^

BigTuna: Good thing he'll never be president.

Dunno, the TeaBaggers are really on the anyone-but-a-mormon kick.

President Obama's campaign hatchetmen will be licking their chops if he gets the nomination.

FTA: [Michael] Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales, in exclusive interviews with Fox News' Megyn Kelly, said they are particularly alarmed by provisions such as allowing Congress to subpoena judges after controversial rulings to "explain their constitutional reasoning" to the politicians who passed the laws.

Gonzales is just scared of the word 'reasoning'.

So he wants to trump the SC when they get something "constitutionally wrong". So Newt, what happens when your branch of the government gets it wrong?

RON PAUL 2012

**************************************************

I like how they spin it: "Well sure, there's a part of his plan that would completely undermine the United States legal system... but apart from that, there's a lot of good stuff in there."

proximo: So he wants to trump the SC when they get something "constitutionally wrong". So Newt, what happens when your branch of the government gets it wrong?

I don't think he believes he can be wrong, therefore, the courts must be in the wrong.

Antimatter: proximo: So he wants to trump the SC when they get something "constitutionally wrong". So Newt, what happens when your branch of the government gets it wrong?

I don't think he believes he can be wrong, therefore, the courts must be in the wrong.

Executive is Latin for 'infallible'. Stupid dim.

Is Gingrich somehow under the impression that Congress can't impeach federal judges?

Antimatter: If there was any doubt the man was a Totalitarian, this pretty much does away with said doubt. He wants absolute control, and the power to ignore the courts when he doesn't like how they rule.

Also, this. And not just ignore; either remove the judges or abolish the court completely.

congress has checks on the courts. it's called amending the constitution, and approving nominations. But really who is going to enforce a supreme court decision if the execs decide to just ignore it?

To the Bürgerbräukeller!

Chummer45: I like how his entire proposal is just filled with pandering ideas that are completely unconstitutional, and dangerously close toexactly the ideas a dictator would promote.

It's like me saying that if I become president, I'll make it so that when congress doesn't pass laws that I want, every member who voted against it will be arrested until they explain every single reason why they didn't vote for it.

Or, if you don't like their laws, you can abolish them completely.

qorkfiend: Is Gingrich somehow under the impression that Congress can't impeach federal judges?

Antimatter: If there was any doubt the man was a Totalitarian, this pretty much does away with said doubt. He wants absolute control, and the power to ignore the courts when he doesn't like how they rule.

Also, this. And not just ignore; either remove the judges or abolish the court completely.

So basically, he wants to be King Newt, and not president.

Well, Gingrich just went from "Kind of a Tard" to "Retarded Monster" for me. Dammit...

Romney's a blatantly dishonest tool, Perry and Bachmann are insane. Most people don't even know who Huntsman is...

Is it bad that things have gotten to the point where RON PAUL is the sanest choice?

LograyX: Is it bad that things have gotten to the point where RON PAUL is the sanest choice?

No. RON PAUL will never be the saner choice.

Antimatter: qorkfiend: Is Gingrich somehow under the impression that Congress can't impeach federal judges?

Antimatter: If there was any doubt the man was a Totalitarian, this pretty much does away with said doubt. He wants absolute control, and the power to ignore the courts when he doesn't like how they rule.

Also, this. And not just ignore; either remove the judges or abolish the court completely.

So basically, he wants to be King Newt, and not president.

Well, yeah. What's the point of being President if you can't do whatever the fark you want?

sprawl15: LograyX: Is it bad that things have gotten to the point where RON PAUL is the sanest choice?

No. RON PAUL will never be the saner choice.

Compared to the rest of the Republican field, not the general populace.

LograyX: sprawl15: LograyX: Is it bad that things have gotten to the point where RON PAUL is the sanest choice?

No. RON PAUL will never be the saner choice.

Compared to the rest of the Republican field, not the general populace.

Roemer, Johnson, and Huntsman are all part of that field.

Chummer45: I don't know... at this point, I think he's the most consistent -- dare I say honest and not totally crazy?

He's the most directly destructive candidate in the field. Idiots like Santorum or Bachmann would eliminate liberties and oppress minorities, but RON PAUL would literally collapse our system.

qorkfiend: Is Gingrich somehow under the impression that Congress can't impeach federal judges?

Antimatter: If there was any doubt the man was a Totalitarian, this pretty much does away with said doubt. He wants absolute control, and the power to ignore the courts when he doesn't like how they rule.

Also, this. And not just ignore; either remove the judges or abolish the court completely.

Maybe he found a hotter younger Supreme Court that isn't filled with tumors.

Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales, in exclusive interviews with Fox News' Megyn Kelly, said they are particularly alarmed by provisions such as allowing Congress to subpoena judges after controversial rulings to "explain their constitutional reasoning" to the politicians who passed the laws.

That Gingrich would even suggest something like this proves that not only should he never be allowed near power again, he should be KHITBASHed until he passes out. What a stupid farking idea.

It's hilarious that after all this time entertaining the idea of supporting whoever the bases' candidate-of-the-week was, the establishment is finally putting its foot down and is showing Newt the door all at once. The polls are looking like this strategy will be effective.

Anyway, anyone who believes the Founders intended the Supreme Court (who were given lifetime appointments rather than less than a decade terms for everyone else) to be subservient to the desires of Congress and the President does not deserve the title "Historian." Colonists knew what court systems run by the executive were like and rejected it in favor of a seperate coequal branch.

They didn't give the Supreme Court the best tools for their position it's true, but they found some early on to the point that you would think the Founders would have commented more on Marbury if it completely overturned the system as they understood it. No, you don't get to pass laws that say "we understand the Constitution better than the Supreme Court so they can't overturn this."

Grungehamster: ou would think the Founders would have commented more on Marbury if it completely overturned the system as they understood it

Madison disagreed with it (obviously). Jefferson said it would be like "placing us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

Grungehamster: They didn't give the Supreme Court the best tools for their position it's true, but they found some early on to the point that you would think the Founders would have commented more on Marbury if it completely overturned the system as they understood it. No, you don't get to pass laws that say "we understand the Constitution better than the Supreme Court so they can't overturn this."

Or, in the over 200 years since Marbury, a Constitutional amendment to rectify the if it was glaringly unbalanced.

sprawl15: LograyX: sprawl15: LograyX: Is it bad that things have gotten to the point where RON PAUL is the sanest choice?

No. RON PAUL will never be the saner choice.

Compared to the rest of the Republican field, not the general populace.

Roemer, Johnson, and Huntsman are all part of that field.

Chummer45: I don't know... at this point, I think he's the most consistent -- dare I say honest and not totally crazy?

He's the most directly destructive candidate in the field. Idiots like Santorum or Bachmann would eliminate liberties and oppress minorities, but RON PAUL would literally collapse our system.

Hopefully only the parts that need collapsing.

/RON PAUL

elchip: Madison disagreed with it (obviously). Jefferson said it would be like "placing us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

Do you know if there were any alternative proposals about how to deal with unconstitutional laws?

I can't wait to watch Newt come out swinging in tonight's faux-debate. Come on you smug, corpulent bastard! Go out in a blaze of glory!

I think Newt views himself a bit like Caesar Augustus. He wants to be a civilizing force in America, to eliminate the inefficiency and stupidity of our pitiful Republic and usher in a glorious new era of Empire.

Fark him right in the eye.

NobleHam: I think Newt views himself a bit like Caesar AugustusChancellor Palpatine. He wants to be a civilizing force in America, to eliminate the inefficiency and stupidity of our pitiful Republic and usher in a glorious new era of Empire.

Fark him right in the eye.

FTF alignment.

NobleHam: Fark him right in the eye.

So...more like Caligula then?

sprawl15: LograyX: sprawl15: LograyX: Is it bad that things have gotten to the point where RON PAUL is the sanest choice?

No. RON PAUL will never be the saner choice.

Compared to the rest of the Republican field, not the general populace.

Roemer, Johnson, and Huntsman are all part of that field.

Chummer45: I don't know... at this point, I think he's the most consistent -- dare I say honest and not totally crazy?

He's the most directly destructive candidate in the field. Idiots like Santorum or Bachmann would eliminate liberties and oppress minorities, but RON PAUL would literally collapse our system.

I think that the 'system' has already collapsed; perhaps excepting for a very small percentage of the populace.

Too big to fail really is too big to exist.
I learned it as a child as 'what comes up...'

/It was a nice run.
//Everybody loses is the next game is stacked by the winners of the last

LograyX: sprawl15: LograyX: Is it bad that things have gotten to the point where RON PAUL is the sanest choice?

No. RON PAUL will never be the saner choice.

Compared to the rest of the Republican field, not the general populace.

Being the sanest guy in the current GOP field holds as much weight as being the toughest guy in the Twilght book club.

But the Republicans *love* the Constitution!

Macinfarker: But the Republicans *love* the Constitution!

No, they're just Area Men. (New Window)

piglet: I think that the 'system' has already collapsed; perhaps excepting for a very small percentage of the populace.

When I said the word 'literally', I meant literally. I'm talking actual destruction of society and disappearance of rule of law kind of shiat.

buck1138: Hopefully only the parts that need collapsing.

That's like shooting yourself in the head in the hope that you'll only bleed out the bad humors.