Newt Gingrich Hates the Constitution, Would Arrest Judges
Articles,  Blog

Newt Gingrich Hates the Constitution, Would Arrest Judges


uh… newt gingrich would send u_s_
marshals to arrest activist judges this is an incredible new idea from potential republican presidential nominee and
possible president of the united states newt gingrich he is continuing this
crime crusade against the courts he says that there are judges who are dedicated to imposing secularism on the country and it wouldn’t be outrageous to just
get those just go arrest those judges here’s what he had to say to bob
schieffer and this is really just uh… continuing
disregard for the constitution continuing disregard for sanity logic
and reason in many of the other tenants uh… that that we know would be ascribed to a potential president those are missing here’s a little bit of
that clip things you’re saying is that date you don’t like uh… what a coroner’s
don the congress should subpoena judge in
bringing before congress and and and hold a congressional hearing
some people say that’s unconstitutional by what they go for a minute i’m just
one issue from a practical standpoint how would you do in forced back would you send the
capitol police ran into a restaurant you had to while you disrupt the the needed to a
justice department to send u_s_ marshal justifications ordinary i think he should be right so if you
have to send the capitol police to register arrest judges that you believe
our imposing secularism then we talk about the judges that are
approaching uh… the isn’t that right now you know that
the other glad that that we don’t have any money for those that are on capitol
police we don’t need the u_s_ marshal jail sentences you to go to church every
sunday for for a few years that’s why i thought newt gingrich was against sharia
law or anything resembling it but this is is it does his version of sharia law
is this not newt gingrich suggesting if you do uh… something in a court of
your rule in a way that is not to my liking overrule it and i will arrest the
judge that made the rolling i mean this is this is and but it’s got it’s
completely an american it’s completely against the constitution
newt gingrich claims to be so in enamored with this is just the g_o_p_ primary has just become answered by competition to see who is the most religious nana
unserious this is a religious thing in a way it is in indirectly worldwide
imposing secularism behavior fighting the responding the people there impose
insecurity and partially his christian agenda but let me know yeah is in this whole
race just just a competition to see who can be
more christian it is becoming that and poor newt heaps forgetting about that
first amendment and it’s quintessential job of separating church n c which she really really seems to hate he
doesn’t seem to like that separation we’ve heard a more enjoy our in comments
from presidential candidates but how we actually heard anything more ridiculous
when we look at legal precedent which is not existed for this by the way uh… and uh… conflict with the established system of
laws in this country this could be why it is definitely in
the top five most ridiculous claims uh… early ideas by any presidential
candidate it’s it’s pretty bad and i guarantee you after the primary things will be a lot less religious to decide if president i don’t know
about that i don’t know about that there’ll be a
regis obon is going to be cast as the nonreligious guy so in the absent it you
know in in an exchange for that the republican candidates going to be post
up there as the religious ken well that’s fine but uh… in the
primary the vast majority of people voting for
you uh… care about that in the presidential election it’s that
much smaller number percentage wise the other thing is
irritating me about newt gingrich is he’s kind of being depicted falsely as
this weekend professorial historian here’s a clip
from the shanahan they show with a perfect example of this sales product talked about saini um… editing uh… amusing mild
words and that is very tough for thier um… that it was my worst especially
irrational the president’s policy of lead to that point was on energy um…
obviously responding to ted mit romney when he’s on stage and obviously he’s
risen to the polls because of these today design stage to seek counter that
argument that merit that his opponents are trying to advance on him absolutely
he’s playing a historian that’s why he went from four percent in
the polls out over thirty percent bright all the sudden met bron renew gingrich
becomes a historian and he goes from four to thirty percent odd seconds i thought the republicans
didn’t like the elitist professorial types like obama historian sounds pretty
smart and very professorial committee how would how is that with helping him
in the in the rate in the polls that doesn’t make any sense to me i don’t know you’d have to ask uh…
that pollster who was talking about it but uh… i mean how is anyone convinced that the
people running right now are not the leaks a lot of people do understand i really do think a lot of people do
understand that and they’re just picking who they think is the least to police
that of all of them there’s just so many conflicting
narratives and this is just one of those perfect examples i mean a historian because he’s being a
historian he’s rocking in the polls all bomber was a lot professor and that
was that he was an elite because he was a law professor he was used to you verbose john kerry look at that same
thing he’s me once and his vocabulary disqualified him in the eyes of some to
be president of the united states but with newt gingrich all of a sudden it’s
an asset i don’t get it very strange

33 Comments

  • Otokogoroshi

    Remember, a judge is only an 'activist judge' when their political leaning differs from yours. If they align with yours then they're just 'a judge'.

  • l0gically

    What Gingwich is forgetting is that as president, it's not his job to arrest judges and manage the courts. This role is specifically granted to Congress. I'm going to laugh as his support continues to slide right into his gaping sinkhole of a platform. There's no recovery from something like this.

  • Fresh Heat

    If Gingrich goes down, Ron Paul wins Iowa. Then it will likely be between Romney and Paul. At least then the debate may be more sensible if this scenario is actualized.

  • robertmike57

    Judge Biery is a District Judge, that's the bottom level. But its either a Christian, Mormon or a Muslim for President now. This is a Christian nation, makes Gingrich is the only choice.

  • l0gically

    @robertmike57 "This is a Christian nation, makes Gingrich is the only choice."

    First, it's NOT a christian nation, and second, Gingrich is such a fine choice – his background makes him beyond reproach. No seriously – is that the best the right can do?

    What we need is a president that doesn't need to pander to the religious right, and who understands the importance of keeping one's personal religious beliefs out of our government.

  • ohbuddyiliketowatch

    @robertmike57 gingrich is part of/being supported by a christian dominunisim group(check recent midweekpolictics video) how is that not christian… just curious

  • jimtrueblue99

    C'mon, this is a Gingrich stunt. He hopes to exploit the resentment against judges some Iowans feel because of their state supreme court's ruling in favor of marriage equality for gays. He thinks an anti-judge stance will squeeze some votes out of angry yokels. Maybe. But the evidence indicates that Newtie is dropping like a big fat rock in the polls. Soon Newt will be slithering back under the rock he came from.

  • mediadrone01

    As an atheist, my blood boils when politicians pander for the god vote, BUT… I must admit, if Romney gets the nomination, I'm SO looking forward to Obama smacking him in the face with his big black Jesus. I simply cannot wait for the Mormon issue to come up. They're saving that card. That's Obama's ace. If he gets the nod, the first time Romney is asked in public if Jesus Christ is the one true lord and savior and can't answer it, he's DONE. Magic stones and special underwear? I love it!

  • Condor1970

    This is what this country needs. Our lawyers and Judges are out of control. Some of them should be called in front of Congress on national TV, and explain to the country why they make some of the decisions they do. The moment they need to explain themselves, you'd be amazed at how all of a sudden, these moronic Anti-American decisions stop.

  • Condor1970

    @SouthParkBear US Constitution Article 3 section 1.

    Specifically states that judges shall serve in times of good behavior. It has been stated in the federalist papers and precedent that violation of "good behavior" not only includes a felony, but improper use of power to manipulate the stated intent of enacted laws by Congress. If Judges purposely interpret enacted laws to promote personal agenda veering from original intention, they may be impeached by Congress, and removed from office.

  • Condor1970

    @SouthParkBear That is the whole purpose of Congress. The Congress shall have authority to impeach federal Judges. That is who is supposed to keep the Judicial branch in check. Congress is the elected representatives of the people. That is their purpose. Same goes for impeaching the President.
    And the Constitution is written to establish the structure of the FEDERAL Government, and to limit its power. The power to impeach Judges and the President in fact lies with the Congress.

  • Condor1970

    @SouthParkBear Yes, the interpetation of the Constitution and enacted laws lies with the Judges. It is seperate. That's their job. However, if activist judges purposely try to interpet the Constitution and enacted laws outside the established intent, authority lies within the Congress to impeach any Judge for improper use of their powers. Bully Pulpit power lies with the Presient to urge Congress to impeach a Judge if he so desires. Whether or not the Congress actually does it, is up to them.

  • Condor1970

    @SouthParkBear You obviously have never studied Constitutional law. That's IS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. It is to establish the structure and LIMIT the power of the Federal Government. That is what the founding fathers wrote it for. Otherwise the Federal Government can easily overeach its powers over the people, and make them slaves, or usurp the rightsof the people, like The British did. That's why is was written, to prevent that.

  • Condor1970

    @SouthParkBear You really need to go to school and actually study history without listening to some moronic liberal hippie for a teacher you must have. And yes, Congress can abuse its power too. That's why they have 2 year terms. If the other members of Congress will not censure and remove corrupt representatives, then the President actually has authority to have them arrested if they have broken the law. If their actions are simply politically abhorant, then the people can elect someone else.

  • Condor1970

    @SouthParkBear Um…Yes. The President does have executive authority to arrest someone if they have broken the law. That's what Executive authority is for. That is the power he has been given upon entering office. What do you think the Dept of Justice falls under? The Executive Branch. ie, under the President.

    The fact that you have resorted to cursing and calling me names, proves you are obviously still a child, and know nothing about Constitutional Law.

    Please stay in school.

  • Condor1970

    @SouthParkBear Germany has nothing to do with it. Do you have any idea what the job of the President is, or the authority he is granted upon appointment to office? You obviously don't.
    Even George Washington lead the Army himself on American soil to crush the Whiskey rebellion, a tax revolt lead by American citizens after the revolution in 1794, after the Constitution was ratified.
    The President has that Executive Authority under the Constitution. You need to read a few more history books.

  • New Dawn Productions

    Violating the Oath of Office to the constitution is a FEDERAL OFFENSE.

    So arresting judges (and politicians) who violate their oaths to the constitution is not a bad idea.

  • libertyeconomics

    Violating the oath is NOT a federal offense. Show me that statute. Also, having the Executive war against the Judicial in that manner runs contrary to the principle of separate but equal. They are co-equal branches.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *