Gingrich loses his mind

September 30, 2006

Too often, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) is taken seriously. Of all the major conservative voices on the political scene, Gingrich is considered something of a “thinker.” He’s thought of as someone who cares about “ideas.” Gingrich isn’t just some nut who reflexively parrots right-wing talking points, the conventional wisdom tells us, he’s a conservative who has thought things through.

The sooner people disabuse themselves of this mistaken belief, the better.

Supreme Court decisions that are “so clearly at variance with the national will” should be overridden by the other branches of government, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says.

“What I reject, out of hand, is the idea that by five to four, judges can rewrite the Constitution, but it takes two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate and three-fourths of the states to equal five judges,” Gingrich said during a Georgetown University Law Center conference on the judiciary. […]

Gingrich said “the other two branches have an absolute obligation to render independent judgment” in cases that are “at variance with the national will.”

The specific legal controversy that sent Gingrich on this tirade was the 2002 case involving the Pledge of Allegiance and the addition of the phrase “under God.” As it turns out, the Supreme Court threw the case out on appeal for procedural reasons, but the former Speaker said the high court, if it had ruled the “wrong” way on the case, should have been overridden, because the polls show the public likes the Pledge the way it is.

In other words, Gingrich believes the existing rule of law is inadequate — and should be replaced with a system in which constitutional law bends to comply with popularity contests.

The Gingrich model is basically to return to pre-Marbury v. Madison. The final arbiter of the Constitution has been the Supreme Court, but since Newt hasn’t cared for some rulings, it’s time, he believes, to reshuffle the separation-of-powers deck a bit.

The high court could rule on a case, and the ruling would apparently stand — just as long as Congress and the White House gave their approval.

A serious person simply wouldn’t make comments like these in a public forum. It’s not just that Gingrich is wrong, it’s that the suggestion sounds like a rant given by some guy at a bar who’s had one too many and who hasn’t thought about government since his 8th grade civics class.

Gingrich isn’t a thinker; he’s a nut with an impressive title.

The don’t have civics classes anymore.

  • COMMENTARY ON THE MODERN REPUBLICAN PARTY

    By: Alexander Hamilton

    The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly
    essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I
    understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the
    legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass
    no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like.
    Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other
    way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it
    must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the
    Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of
    particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. . . .

    The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar
    province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be
    regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore
    belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning
    of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If
    there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the
    two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought,
    of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution
    ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people
    to the intention of their agents.

    . . . yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the
    representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination
    happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents,
    incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution,
    would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those
    provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater
    obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when
    they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body.

    Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act,
    annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon
    themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no
    presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant
    their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an
    act.

    From The Federalist, No. 78, 1787

    This past week, it has been sooooo easy to find big block quotes from The Founding Fathers that apply directly to all the crimes of treason against the United States being committed by God’s Own Party, because these morons are playing with matches in the same room with the founding documents.

  • Umm. ‘Scuse me Mr. Amphibian but I thought one reason 5 judges were allowed to = a bunch of bastards in suits is because a majority of the bastards agreed to give the judges that power.

    Methinks the slimy wife dumping one is a bit cranky that “their” judges refuse to perform as expected. Or perhaps his terminal bad hair day is a sign of some deeper disorder.

    24k arsehole.

  • Yep. Gingrich no doubt would have preferred the 2000 presidential election be decided by popularity contest (the popular vote) instead of a divisive 5-4 Supreme Court decision.

    I’m sure Gingrich has some argument as to how that situation is “different”. Typical Republican sophistry.

  • Gingrich and Republicans would love to live in a 50% + 1 dictatorship (as long as they’re in the 50% + 1 category).

  • “The don’t have civics classes anymore.”

    Even if they did there’d be no re-enforcement of the contents after 8th grade. Nobody in any major cultural institution of America (i.e., TeeVee “news”) cares anymore about the Founding Fathers, except as a rich source for bio-books to sell. I’m amazed at what I’ve read/heard lately about American ignorance of habeas corpus. This bedrock of constitutional limitation on power since the time of Edward I has been ridiculed as so much academic mumbo jumbo: “Nobody even knows what it means, heh heh [wink, toothy grin]”.

    Remember Mark Antony’s speech in “Julius Caesar”? how easy it was for him to sway the crowd, making them run first run one way, then the other? Thomas More’s (Paul Scofield’s) little speech in “Man for All Seasons”? what it’s like after all the laws like habeas corpus are flattened? Public opinion, unlike natural phenomena, comes into existence only through the process which measures it. Anyone who lives by this false god (which means virtually everybody in politics, communications, entertainment, business, etc.) is a fool.

  • The higher rule of God trumps the rule of man in the minds of those who think that God speaks only to them.

    Having an invisible companion whispering in your ear that you are above the law is the stuff of mental illness.

  • The more I read the blog and discussions, the more I realize what a terrible tipping point Thursday’s bill passage was. There’ll be many more shoes dropping as the rightwing thugs push this idea of absolute power. The last shoe you hear dropping will be followed by a knock on your door.

  • Yes, Newt especially enjoyed that 5-4 decision in 2000. The idea behind the judicial branch is to have seasoned veterans of the law of the land, making reasoned judgments about “popular will.” I think of how many times a POTUS will appoint a judge thinking they will lean towards their political idealogy, only to see them move in an entirely different direction.

    It is amazing how people’s judgments change when they don’t have to think about being reelected.

    Newt’s comments sound like someone desparately trying to retain power. May the GOP continue to implode in 2006 and 2008

  • Gingrich is a conservative. And a politician. Because he once taught college, he’s also regarded as a thinker.

    But really, many of the judges we have on the Supreme Court right now are no better. They twist constitutional law to suit their political purposes. They subverted the constitution by their 2000 decision on the election.

    Yes, Marbury v. Madison established a precedent for the Supreme Court overruling the legislature and executive. But they use that power in just as partisan a way as the other branches.

    Now what I’d like to see is the legislature actually remembering that under the constitution they’re the legislative branch not the executive branch’s rubber stamp.

  • time to keep a gun handy, for that door bell from hell.
    I will guess the “Right to bear ( bare ) arms”, was to protect “US” from the Government.

  • I observed at an early age that people who think they’re always right are usually setting themselves up to be wrong. When wrong, they’ll defy any logic to “prove” they’re right. Gingrich and too many Republicans fit that mold.

  • The validity of his assertion should be examined in every school in America. The glaring omission of specificity with regards to SCOTUS’ role in the constitution, in this regard, certainly speaks volumes about the fallibility of the founding fathers. The whole system of checks and balances is in place to avert arbitrary, impulsive excess, contrary to precedence, by either the masses or elites. C&B can only work as a buffer.

    If the whole society decides to give only white male centenarians the right to vote it can and will, but the process would require the arduous process of constitutional amendment. Without the role of Scotus, it could be tacked onto an omnibus bill at midnight or maybe declared by a signing statement.

    Gingrich and his ilk are spouting treason. They are the greatest threat America, the land of liberty, has ever faced.

  • No, it’s not a matter of popularity contests…but something of “clear” to Newt called “the national will.” This is straight out of J J Rousseau, and it is the basis of totalitarian thinking. (See the classic analyses by J L Talmon.) According to this school of ultimately fascist-racist thought, the “national will” cannot be determined by majorities, which can be wrong. It can only be determined by an individual or movement which is free of contaminants (alien ideologies, etc) and thus can be especially attuned to “the national will.” Pat the Rat Buchanan has been pretty close to saying this with his complaints about too many non-Europeans who do not understand or support “our” heritage corrupting the political process. Pat and Newt are essentially saying that racial-cultural purity is essential, that ideas they disagree with are alien, and that the advocates of these unwelcome ideas are alien to the nation or corrupted by alien elements. The way to restore national greatness, etc is…..qed…..to destroy the cancer which has corrupted the national body and thwarted the national will. To follow their thinking will make Guantanamo the forerunner of the new Auschwitz.

  • “Gingrich and Republicans would love to live in a 50% + 1 dictatorship (as long as they’re in the 50% + 1 category).” – aReader

    If the Republican’t caucus is any example, what they love is having 25% of the whole (Congress) agreeing in private caucus to follow the lead of 26% to totally overrule the remaining 49%.

    What makes the minority of the Republican’t caucus (and their voters) agree to blindly follow the rest is simply fear of Clintonite Democratic competence. Just the ability of Bill Clinton to achieve welfare reform, which the Republican’ts just talked about for at least twelve years, is proof that we don’t even need a conservative party in America. Frankly, I would not have been surprised if Gore/Lieberman had solved health care and significantly reduced the number of abortions in this country.

    I’m going to just repeat this again for fun. There is no such thing as a competent conservative. Why? Because a competent person is prepared to exploit change, and thus chooses to be radical. Thus all conservatives are incompetents (though not all incompetents are conservative, they tend to be). And thus we see the caliber of people who become Bushites. They are all incompetents who see the power of Government as nothing more that a tool to get them the wealth and power they can not achieve in a truly free market. Look at Cheney starting a war in Iraq for no other reason than to boost Haliberton’s stock to make him rich on stock options he should have dropped when he became Vice President.

  • They don’t have Civics classes anymore for a reason, Carrie. If they reinstituted a Civics curriculum, the GOP would become a permanent minority party. But by being “the education party,” they’ve instituted those wonderously-huge excrement mounds of meaningless drivel called “standardized testing” in the public schools. Thanks to that—and the hoops generated by NCLB that students have to keep jumping through—there’s no time for the schools to produce legions of critical thinkers.

    Couple this with an economy that forces BOTH parents into the workplace, and you remove the second great countercheck to a dictatorship’s ability to mold its population into sheep.

    By the way, Tom…good quote. I’m a fan of the Federalist from wa-aaaaaaaaay back….

  • I hate to burst anyone’s bubble, but Civics classes do still exist. AND in some places, like the middle of Illinois, they are still required for Junior High and High School graduation. In fact, at my school, you had to take Civics twice, along with Illinois history.

  • Let’s hear for Illinois, then. A pity more school districts don’t see the value of turning out if not fully educated students then at least informed ones.

    • Comments are closed.