Peter Ferrara on Newt's judicial reform plan

An excerpt from Peter Ferrara:

And if those judges refuse to apply the law objectively as written, and instead engage in judicial activism making up their own law based on their own liberal/left values, then they are applauded by the liberal/left media and academia. The rest of us can go pound sand.

At least that is the view of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the bar association, and the law schools. They are the ultimate authority and rulers in America under this doctrine of judicial supremacy. Any other view is dangerous to our most fundamental liberties, they tell us (at least while the judges reflect their liberal/left views).

But not according to Newt Gingrich, the Founding Fathers, and American history. To these authorities, it is judicial supremacy that is dangerous to our most fundamental liberties.

And another:

Gingrich recalls the actual checks and balances on the judiciary established by our Founding Fathers, who recognized the dangers of judicial supremacy. Jefferson wrote in challenging such judicial supremacy in 1820, "You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." Jefferson further wrote later that year, "The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet."

Please read the full thing here.

And here is Newt's position paper on judicial reform.

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:

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.

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.

Here is the link to the full piece again.

Newt responds to CBS "legal analyst" Andrew Cohen

From Newt.org:

Gingrich rejects this theory of judicial supremacy that Cohen restates, which holds that interpretations of the Constitution are binding interpretations on the other two branches. If the Supreme Court renders decisions that the President and Congress believe are unconstitutional, then Gingrich believes the executive and legislative branches are bound by their oaths of office to use their constitutional powers to check and balance unconstitutional decisions of the Court.

...

In his piece, Cohen quotes Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, who said that Gingrich’s ideas represent a “frontal assault on the independence of the federal judiciary, which is a bulwark of a constitutional system that has served us well as a nation ever since Marbury v. Madison.”

First off, citing Marbury v. Madison as the fountain of the Constitutional authority for the powers of the judicial branch is a customary thing that defenders of the model of an all-powerful federal judiciary do. Professor Tribe should and certainly does know better. The Supreme Court defining the parameters of its own authority in its own judicial decisions is no different than Congress defining their Constitutional authority from a joint resolution passed by both Houses of Congress, or the President defining his/her Constitutional authority via an executive order. Thus, the text of the Constitution and the writings of the Founders must be consulted for a meaningful answer about the powers of the federal judiciary. Otherwise, the Supreme Court derives its authority from its own opinions of its authority.

President Thomas Jefferson and Congress abolished over half of all federal judgeships after the election of 1800. Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress to create lower federal courts, which implies the power to abolish them. The Supreme Court in Stuart v. Laird implicitly acknowledged the judicial branch’s acceptance of the constitutionality of abolishing lower federal courts.

There is much more in the piece posted at Newt.org. Go check it out.

(Video) Newt on Face the Nation Sunday

Link.

Following up on his speech at the Values Voter Summit Friday, Newt went on Face the Nation and discussed his proposal to rein in judges, getting them back under the Constitution.

Here is the link to that speech at the Values Voter Summit.

And here is the position paper Newt 2012 released on the topic.

(Video) Newt's speech at the Values Voter Summit Friday

Newt's speech was centered on how to control out-of-control judges. He released this position paper before the speech.

Link to video.