Just so we’re clear, this week, a leading presidential candidate articulated his belief that, if elected, he might (1) eliminate courts he doesn’t like; (2) ignore court rulings he doesn’t like; and (3) take judges into custody if he disapproves of their legal analyses.
(1) I have not found any place that Gingrich said HE would eliminate courts he doesn't like. He has, I believe, advocated that some extremist courts should be eliminated, but there is a process by which that can occur legislatively.
(2) Gingrich, in discussing the idea of a president "ignoring" a court's ruling, used the term "rarely" -- and rarely, it has been done. A most famous quote on this issue came from President Jackson, who said words to the effect of, "The Court has made its decision, now let's see them enforce it". There are times when courts come to totally incorrect decisions that have no basis in the Constitution. I would point to Dred Scott as one such example. The very root of the American right to privacy is a product of a DISSENTING OPINION of Louis Brandeis in the Olmstead case. That is to say that our right to privacy might not exist today in its current form had the contrary view in Olmstead not been given due consideration. In fact, Gingrich cited several other times when presidents have ignored bad Supreme Court decisions, and nobody I know of would argue that in any of those instances would the president have been right to have done otherwise.
(3) That's not what he said. He said he would have them taken into custody if they refused to respond to a Congressional subpoena.
The Left is all atwitter about Gingrich's remarks, but they're nothing new, and only the Hard Left would see it that way. Perhaps it is red meat for the base, but I agree that courts which refuse to abide by the Constitution are a big problem. Mostly they are a product of liberal ideology oozing into the legal process, which has resulted in a far left wing judiciary. |
