Activism Discussion: Gingrich Urges Overriding Supreme Court

Gingrich Urges Overriding Supreme Court
Posts: 6

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

JOE
2006-09-29 22:40:34 EST
Gingrich Urges Overriding Supreme Court
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 29, 2006
Filed at 6:27 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

It takes approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the
50 states to adopt an amendment to the Constitution, the government's
bedrock document.

Gingrich, a Republican who represented a district in Georgia, noted
that overwhelming majorities in Congress had reaffirmed the Pledge of
Allegiance, and most of the public believes in its right to recite it.

As such, he said, ''It would be a violation of the social compact of
this country for the Supreme Court to decide otherwise and would lead,
I hope, the two other branches to correct the court.''

In 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled
that the pledge was unconstitutional when recited in public schools
because of the reference to God. The Supreme Court in 2004 reversed
that decision on a technicality, but the case has been revived.

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

He spoke at Thursday's panel discussion on relations between the
executive, judicial and legislative branches of government.

Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who spoke
on the same panel, noted the high court's 5-4 decision settling the
contested 2000 presidential election in favor of Republican George W.
Bush.

''What if Al Gore had said I don't agree?'' Daschle asked. ''In a
sense, what we did was put the court in the position of the American
people. We were giving the court the power to make the decision for
the American people based on their best judgment and I'm not
challenging the judgment. I accept it, too, even though I disagree.''

^------

Woden
2006-09-29 22:50:08 EST
JOE <admon@nomail.net> wrote in news:98mrh2lqmebhjb8fti31vaeaohp4o9v3en@
4ax.com:

> Gingrich Urges Overriding Supreme Court
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> Published: September 29, 2006
> Filed at 6:27 p.m. ET
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.
>
> It takes approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the
> 50 states to adopt an amendment to the Constitution, the government's
> bedrock document.
>
> Gingrich, a Republican who represented a district in Georgia, noted
> that overwhelming majorities in Congress had reaffirmed the Pledge of
> Allegiance, and most of the public believes in its right to recite it.
>
> As such, he said, ''It would be a violation of the social compact of
> this country for the Supreme Court to decide otherwise and would lead,
> I hope, the two other branches to correct the court.''
>
> In 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled
> that the pledge was unconstitutional when recited in public schools
> because of the reference to God. The Supreme Court in 2004 reversed
> that decision on a technicality, but the case has been revived.
>
> Gingrich said ''the other two branches have an absolute obligation to
> render independent judgment'' in cases that are ''at variance with the
> national will.''
>
> He spoke at Thursday's panel discussion on relations between the
> executive, judicial and legislative branches of government.
>
> Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who spoke
> on the same panel, noted the high court's 5-4 decision settling the
> contested 2000 presidential election in favor of Republican George W.
> Bush.
>
> ''What if Al Gore had said I don't agree?'' Daschle asked. ''In a
> sense, what we did was put the court in the position of the American
> people. We were giving the court the power to make the decision for
> the American people based on their best judgment and I'm not
> challenging the judgment. I accept it, too, even though I disagree.''
>
> ^------
>

Yep, just another "wannabe fascist" neocon who doesn't like the
constitution...

--
Woden

"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."

Johac
2006-09-30 01:38:13 EST
In article <Xns984DE8D5A2BE3wodencharternet@69.28.186.121>,
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:

> JOE <admon@nomail.net> wrote in news:98mrh2lqmebhjb8fti31vaeaohp4o9v3en@
> 4ax.com:
>
> > Gingrich Urges Overriding Supreme Court
> > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> > Published: September 29, 2006
> > Filed at 6:27 p.m. ET
> >
> > WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.
> >
> > It takes approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the
> > 50 states to adopt an amendment to the Constitution, the government's
> > bedrock document.
> >
> > Gingrich, a Republican who represented a district in Georgia, noted
> > that overwhelming majorities in Congress had reaffirmed the Pledge of
> > Allegiance, and most of the public believes in its right to recite it.
> >
> > As such, he said, ''It would be a violation of the social compact of
> > this country for the Supreme Court to decide otherwise and would lead,
> > I hope, the two other branches to correct the court.''
> >
> > In 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled
> > that the pledge was unconstitutional when recited in public schools
> > because of the reference to God. The Supreme Court in 2004 reversed
> > that decision on a technicality, but the case has been revived.
> >
> > Gingrich said ''the other two branches have an absolute obligation to
> > render independent judgment'' in cases that are ''at variance with the
> > national will.''
> >
> > He spoke at Thursday's panel discussion on relations between the
> > executive, judicial and legislative branches of government.
> >
> > Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who spoke
> > on the same panel, noted the high court's 5-4 decision settling the
> > contested 2000 presidential election in favor of Republican George W.
> > Bush.
> >
> > ''What if Al Gore had said I don't agree?'' Daschle asked. ''In a
> > sense, what we did was put the court in the position of the American
> > people. We were giving the court the power to make the decision for
> > the American people based on their best judgment and I'm not
> > challenging the judgment. I accept it, too, even though I disagree.''
> >
> > ^------
> >
>
> Yep, just another "wannabe fascist" neocon who doesn't like the
> constitution...

Isn't strange that they want to abolish the Court only when the Justices
don't agree with them?

'Snoot' was always a fascist. How many wives is he up to now?
--
John Hachmann aa #1782

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire

Contact - Throw a .net over the .com

Dale
2006-09-30 02:10:50 EST
"JOE" <admon@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:98mrh2lqmebhjb8fti31vaeaohp4o9v3en@4ax.com...
> Gingrich Urges Overriding Supreme Court
[...]
> Gingrich, a Republican who represented a district in Georgia, noted
> that overwhelming majorities in Congress had reaffirmed the Pledge of
> Allegiance, and most of the public believes in its right to recite it.

Will somebody tell him that the Pledge of Allegience is not in the
Constitution?



Tim McGaughy
2006-09-30 16:31:37 EST
JOE wrote:
> Gingrich Urges Overriding Supreme Court
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> Published: September 29, 2006
> Filed at 6:27 p.m. ET
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

So surely he thinks the idea that ONE person can override the other
branches of government by doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING but without even
voting on it?

Yes? Kewl, someone call Bush and tell him to pack his bags. We don't
need him anymore.



Gingrich is a simpleton who does not understand why the supreme court
exists in the first place.

Carl Kaufmann
2006-10-01 00:12:36 EST
JOE wrote:
> Gingrich Urges Overriding Supreme Court
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> Published: September 29, 2006
> Filed at 6:27 p.m. ET
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.
>
> It takes approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the
> 50 states to adopt an amendment to the Constitution, the government's
> bedrock document.
>
> Gingrich, a Republican who represented a district in Georgia, noted
> that overwhelming majorities in Congress had reaffirmed the Pledge of
> Allegiance, and most of the public believes in its right to recite it.
>
> As such, he said, ''It would be a violation of the social compact of
> this country for the Supreme Court to decide otherwise and would lead,
> I hope, the two other branches to correct the court.''
>
> In 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled
> that the pledge was unconstitutional when recited in public schools
> because of the reference to God. The Supreme Court in 2004 reversed
> that decision on a technicality, but the case has been revived.
>
> Gingrich said ''the other two branches have an absolute obligation to
> render independent judgment'' in cases that are ''at variance with the
> national will.''
>
> He spoke at Thursday's panel discussion on relations between the
> executive, judicial and legislative branches of government.
>
> Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who spoke
> on the same panel, noted the high court's 5-4 decision settling the
> contested 2000 presidential election in favor of Republican George W.
> Bush.
>
> ''What if Al Gore had said I don't agree?'' Daschle asked. ''In a
> sense, what we did was put the court in the position of the American
> people. We were giving the court the power to make the decision for
> the American people based on their best judgment and I'm not
> challenging the judgment. I accept it, too, even though I disagree.''
>
> ^------

It's such the fucking will of the people, then the amendment should
pass with flying colours. There is a mechanism in place ... why
don't they use it?
Page: 1   (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron