Gingrich rejects judicial supremacy, which was first articulated as dicta in Cooper v. Aaron. In judicial decisions, as Millhiser surely knows, dicta is different from the actual legal reasoning that supports the holding of a judicial decision. In Cooper, the Court’s assertion of judicial interpretative supremacy of the Constitution vis-à-vis the other two branches of the federal government was not necessary as a basis of its holding that state governments, in this case Arkansas, had to abide by the Court’s decisions. Article VI of the Constitution, which holds that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding,” was more than an adequate basis for the decision.Here is the link to the full piece again.
Yet, in Millhiser’s telling, Gingrich’s observation that the Court claimed judicial supremacy for itself for the first time in Cooper amounts to opposition to desegregation.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Newt 2012 Policy Director Vince Haley on judicial supremacy
From the piece on Newt.org, responding to Think Progress (a hack website funded by George Soros: