• Comment (19)

Newt Gingrich’s Dictatorial View of 'Activist Judges'

December 19, 2011 RSS Feed Print

In 2009, Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich slammed President Obama for shaking the hand of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the Americas. White House officials at the time noted that it was just a handshake at an international meeting of world leaders, and did not constitute any sanction of Chavez's rather disturbing behavior. But Gingrich said Obama was boosting the "enemies of America."

Now, it appears, Gingrich has identified other enemies of the state—those pesky members of the U.S. judicial branch who rule in ways Gingrich doesn't like. Never mind the separation of powers or the judicial appeals process. Forget about the reason behind the independence of the judiciary: that judges should not be subject to the same political pressures affecting the legislative and executive branches. Gingrich wants to be able to remove those judges—even cancel entire courts—if they do not do his bidding. And even after Gingrich's idea was slammed by legal minds on the left and right, the former House Speaker and current GOP presidential candidate doubled down, telling CBS's Face the Nation that the president (presumably him, in his vision for the country) could send in U.S. marshals to arrest "activist" judges and force them to appear at congressional hearings to defend their judicial decisions.

[See a collection of political cartoons on Newt Gingrich.]

Such an idea may sound crazy to some (former Bush administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey has said some of Gingrich's ideas for the judiciary are "dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off-the-wall, and would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle"). But Gingrich might find a sympathetic ear in the bombastic Venezuelan leader, who has been roundly criticized for his own attempts to stifle judicial controls on his power. According to a report this year by the highly-respected Human Rights Watch:

In 2004 President Chavez and his supporters in the National Assembly launched a political takeover of the Supreme Court, filling it with government supporters and creating new measures that make it possible to purge justices from the court. Since then the court has largely abdicated its role as a check on executive power, failing to uphold fundamental rights enshrined in Venezuela's constitution in key cases involving government efforts to limit freedom of expression and association.

The government shows scant respect for democratic checks and balances. Individual judges may face reprisals if they rule against government interests. In December 2009, Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni was detained on the day she authorized the conditional release of Eligio Cedeno, a banker accused of corruption. Afiuni was following a recommendation by the UN working group on arbitrary detentions, given that Cedeno had been in pre-trial detention for almost three years despite, although Venezuelan law prescribes a two-year limit. A day after her arrest, Chavez branded Afiuni a `bandit' who should be sentenced to the maximum 30 years in prison. Accused of corruption, abuse of authority, and "favoring evasion of justice," the judge's right to due process was violated in several respects in criminal proceedings against her. Three UN human rights experts issued a joint press release describing her arrest as 'a blow to the independence of judges and lawyers in the country,' and called for her release. Still, the Supreme Court denied her appeals for the protection of her rights. As of October 2010 she was still held in deplorable conditions in a Caracas women's prison.

[See pictures of the crackdown in Syria.]

Well, that's one way to silence one's political critics.

Government executives around the world find themselves frustrated by legislatures or judiciaries that thwart their agendas or limit their power. The leaders of Kuwait and Kazakhstan recently dissolved their respective parliaments, calling for new elections that could produce more amenable legislative bodies. But while one could forgive President Obama if he secretly wishes, from time to time, that he could dissolve Congress, that's not the way we do things here in America.

Chavez carried it off. Perhaps Gingrich could shake his hand.

Tags:
courts,
2012 presidential election,
Newt Gingrich,
Hugo Chávez,
politics

Reader Comments Read all comments (19)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I am not sure what Gingrich said BUT...

current courts DO NOT observe separation of powers nor the CONSTITUTION. Liberal are the worst but not the only users of legislation via precedent

Many liberal judges have fairly openly alluded to the fact that "hey we are the ones who determine if its Constitutional or not. So since there is no check and balance on this power -- the Constitution as a document is merely a symbol for American without any literal or specific meaning. The courts are the sole agent to determine the current "Constitutional" will of the people. "

Recent paraphrases included "sometimes rights must give away to convenience of enforcement"...basically an admission that strictly speaking it was not Constitutional.

I do agree with Liberal judges that the Constitution and historic US Statutes are so dated as to make practical enforcement of modern technologically impact issues difficult to impossible.

However I do not respect courts that take matters into their own political biased hands rather than become leaders in organizing a new Constitutional Convention -- one where practical leaders and the whole US voting population agreed to new standards rather than having judges assume or impose personal standards.

Well-Duh of TX 8:10PM December 23, 2011

Why does Mr. Gingrich, then, approve of the Supreme Court ruling that corporations are American citizens? This, most certainly, is an example of overreaching Supreme Court Judges. Never before in our history would it be even suggested that corporations be considered for American citizenship. Now corporations are American citizens with unlimited funds to pay off the best politicians money can buy.

Should you want to discuss the "American patriotism" of "citizen corporations," merely research World War II American History and wonder what American corporations were thinking when they gave corporate backing and financial support to Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

http://rationalrevolution.net/war/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm

There are dangers in allowing a corporate entity to become an American citizen. Just where does patriotism end and greed and profit begin? Both Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt warned us of the dangers of corporate interests in politics and in government, yet, we are ignoring history.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes." -George Santana (loosely translated)-

ann keenan of MI 2:17AM December 23, 2011

"AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY"

Is a sort of mantra for pseudo intellectuals. But, how is an "independent" judiciary any different than an "independent" dictator, cabal or board of inquisitors?

If there is nothing inherently different in the human composition of a judge then there is no difference. The erosion of honor and character in our society has fostered a sacred view of subjectivity - the rule of law lies trampled along with other quaint ideas from our founding. Hence, we have the growing cancer of judicial whimsy and novelty.

40 years ago a person who stopped a woman from aborting her baby would have been a hero - Today they’d be arrested for a hate crime and violating a woman’s "nouveau" civil rights. Conversely, someone who protected a runaway slave in 1860 was in violation of the law. What is evil to the objective, universal will of God has never changed, but it has for some men in some places- sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly.

If the world were made up of objective men and just laws the lines would be more clearly drawn. But, perfect justice by the lights of man alone is not possible - The “rule of law” is made worthless by an “activist” judiciary and, as a result, society views many laws as malleable, or even without purpose. A moral compass without "True North" is worthless.

And so, we have tangled ourselves in politically correct laws and

regulations - artificial and unrealistic criteria strangles true education, Green Dogma cripples economies and liberty. We demand adherence to codes of conduct that have little to do with objective morality, honor, or truth.

When the character of men becomes weak so do their institutions - The legal system is no exception.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 12:31PM December 20, 2011

Susan Milligan

Susan Milligan

Susan Milligan is a political and foreign affairs writer and contributed to a biography of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, "Last Lion: The Fall and Rise of Ted Kennedy." Follow her on Twitter @MilliganSusan.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Political Enemies: Good vs. Perfect

In politics the perfect is often the enemy of the good.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement