If Gingrich gets the GOP Nomination I will vote for Obama

#1
T

therealUT

Rational Thought Allowed?
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
30,347
Likes
4,191
#1
I am not a fan of Obama; I did not vote for him in '08 (I cast a write-in vote) and, until this morning, the thought of voting for Obama had not even crossed my mind. However, in light of Gingrich's remarks regarding the Supreme Court, I will not hesitate to vote for Obama if Gingrich wins the GOP Nomination.

Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court decisions that conflicted with his powers as commander in chief, and he would press for impeaching judges or even abolishing certain courts if he disagreed with their rulings.

...

Relying on those precedents, Gingrich said that if he were in the White House, he would not feel compelled to always follow the Supreme Court's decisions on constitutional questions.

...

Gingrich also said that as president he might ignore a Supreme Court ruling if it held gays and lesbians had the right to marry.

"The Constitution of the United States has absolutely nothing to say about a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Were the federal courts to recognize such a right, it would be completely without constitutional basis," he wrote.

While his critique of the courts has been popular on the right, even some conservatives object to Gingrich's proposals on abolishing courts or impeaching judges over their decisions.

Conservative legal analyst Edward Whelan called Gingrich's proposal for abolishing judgeships "constitutionally unsound and politically foolish."

The Constitution says judges, once appointed, "shall hold their offices during good behavior." And while their decisions can be overruled by higher courts, judges have not been threatened with impeachment over their rulings.

Newt Gingrich says he'd defy Supreme Court rulings he opposed - latimes.com
Click to expand...
 
#2
#2
He went down this path in the debate. Dumb and dangerous. That said, there are no conditions under which I would vote for Obama.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4
#4
Perfectly acceptable not to be a fan of Gingrich. That does not give sufficient reason to case a vote for Obama. Plenty of other candidates out there. Or you could simply write-in a candidate again.
 
#6
#6
PKT_VOL said:
Perfectly acceptable not to be a fan of Gingrich. That does not give sufficient reason to case a vote for Obama. Plenty of other candidates out there. Or you could simply write-in a candidate again.
Click to expand...

As bad as Obama is, as shady as some of the things the Executive Department is doing under his watch, at least he is not outwardly stating that he will do whatever he wants regardless of any SCOTUS rulings.
 
#7
#7
therealUT said:
As bad as Obama is, as shady as some of the things the Executive Department is doing under his watch, at least he is not outwardly stating that he will do whatever he wants regardless of any SCOTUS rulings.
Click to expand...

Sad thing is, there are sheep out there who are eating it up and touting Gingrich as the man!
 
#9
#9
Gingrich sure got a hearty round of applause concerning the supreme court judges not making laws from the bench on his watch...I tend to agree with him.
 
#12
#12
therealUT said:
As bad as Obama is, as shady as some of the things the Executive Department is doing under his watch, at least he is not outwardly stating that he will do whatever he wants regardless of any SCOTUS rulings.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. I meant to tell you thank you for posting those quotes. I had not heard them yet. Very disturbing indeed. A gut-wrenching nominee is just not a justifiable reason to vote for a turrible *Charles Barkley voice* incumbent president. Voting for the lesser of the two evils is part of the reason we are up sh*t creek without a paddle.
 
#14
#14
PKT_VOL said:
Totally agree. I meant to tell you thank you for posting those quotes. I had not heard them yet. Very disturbing indeed. A gut-wrenching nominee is just not a justifiable reason to vote for a turrible *Charles Barkley voice* incumbent president. Voting for the lesser of the two evils is part of the reason we are up sh*t creek without a paddle.
Click to expand...

Normally, I am with you. I also understand that whenever I write-in or vote third party, I am not affecting the actual election; normally, I am fine with that. However, if it comes down to picking Obama, who is a terrible incumbent, or Gingrich who seems to be embracing the role as a Leviathan Tyrant, I would have to do everything in my power to see that Gingrich was not elected.

Writing-in or voting third party does not do enough; hopefully, the GOP will nominate either Paul or Huntsman (or, the DNC will run someone against Obama).
 
#16
#16
therealUT said:
Normally, I am with you. I also understand that whenever I write-in or vote third party, I am not affecting the actual election; normally, I am fine with that. However, if it comes down to picking Obama, who is a terrible incumbent, or Gingrich who seems to be embracing the role as a Leviathan Tyrant, I would have to do everything in my power to see that Gingrich was not elected.

Writing-in or voting third party does not do enough; hopefully, the GOP will nominate either Paul or Huntsman (or, the DNC will run someone against Obama).
Click to expand...

I get your point. However, I feel that you have to pick your poison. I feel our debt/spending problem is the biggest threat to the United States period. Obama is not the answer. In fact he is nothing but fuel to the fire. Gingrich, however, is talking some mess about hypothetical Supreme Court situation. I am hoping that his peers, Congress, and the American people won't let that crap fly if he was ever in office and held true to his word.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#17
#17
As bad as Obama is, and as horrible as his policies are, he is still a better option than Newt, no doubt. Also, he is a better option than Romney too. As long as the GOP controls the house (and maybe the senate, depending), then Obama is not a real threat. A GOP pres combined with a GOP congress is very scary to me. Look at the early Bush the lesser if you don't know what I am talking about.

I will vote third party either way though. It simply does not matter who I vote for here in TN. The GOPer will win TN no matter what.
 
#18
#18
an assclown like Jesse Ventura would have to secure the GOP nomination before I'd ever contemplate voting for four more years of Obama.
 
#20
#20
Newt's Constitutional Confusions | Roger Pilon | Cato Institute: Commentary

excerpt:
In fact, the most striking feature of Newt’s manifesto is its failure even to notice that. Its focus is on what he sees as an out-of-control judiciary that’s frustrating the popular will, which he’d remedy with everything from judicial impeachments to abolishing whole circuits. Yet as his first example of what he calls “judicial supremacy” — the power of the court to say what the law is, which Marbury v. Madison made explicit in 1803 — he offers the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London, which upheld, as a “public use,” the city’s transfer of Ms. Kelo’s home to a private developer. Mistaken as the court’s reading of the Constitution’s Takings Clause was in that case, the decision hardly frustrated popular government. Indeed, it upheld the city’s actions.

But the confusion doesn’t end there. In fact, here’s how Gingrich states his point broadly: “Since the New Deal of the 1930s the power of the American judiciary has increased exponentially at the expense of elected representatives of the people in the other two branches.” Really? To be sure, during Franklin Roosevelt’s first term the court, consistent with its understanding of constitutionally limited government stretching back to the founding, held several New Deal schemes to be unconstitutional. But after Roosevelt’s infamous court-packing threat of 1937, which Gingrich praises, the court collapsed and the modern welfare state poured through. That’s the regulatory and redistributive Leviathan that gave rise to the tea party. Yet there’s Newt, right behind the process that brought that state about.
...
Nor does Gingrich rest his case against the courts on that decision alone, which he treats simply as the font of the modern problem. Ever the historian, he reaches back for other examples of popular resistance to the court’s “finality,” landing especially on some of Thomas Jefferson’s more intemperate comments about the court. Here again, however, his contention that Jefferson faced “a judicial branch that exceeded its authority” is utterly confused. The Federalists opposing Jefferson’s rise, he writes, “had used the federal judiciary to enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to imprison Jeffersonian activists.” Well yes, they had: that’s how the acts, like all statutes, were enforced. How, then, had the judiciary “exceeded its authority”? To the contrary, if anything the courts had shirked their authority — their power to find the infamous acts unconstitutional. As in Kelo, they deferred to the political branches, which had passed the acts and, in doing so, had themselves exceeded their authority.

We come, then, to the heart of the problem with Gingrich’s thesis: Nowhere, not once in his entire discussion about the courts, do we find him recognizing even the problem of overweening government, much less the source of that problem in the political branches. The Supreme Court didn’t give us the New Deal; Congress and the Roosevelt administration did. Nor did it give us the Great Society — or Obamacare. Gingrich is stuck in the era when conservatives, decades ago, were reacting to the admitted excesses of the Warren and Burger Courts with cries of “judicial activism.”
Click to expand...
 
#24
#24
And then there's this perspective...

OpEdNews - Article: Thom Hartmann: Important! Newt is right about the Supreme Court
First, Newt’s assertion that the Congress can pass laws that limit the powers and behavior of the Supreme Court. The Constitution, in Section Two of Article Three which establishes the Judiciary, does give Congress the power to define and limit what the Supreme Court can and can’t do. Here’s the exact language, “The Supreme Court shall have appelate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” Yes, that’s what the Constitution says – in plain black and white. If Congress disagrees with – for example – the Citizens United decision, or the Bush v. Gore meeting – they can simply pass a law that says that the Supreme Court has overstepped its authority and that’s the end of that.

Why, you may ask, did the Founders write it this way?

The answer is really simple. They wanted the greatest power to be closest to the people – and Congress is up for election every two years. It’s the body in our representative democratic republic that is closest to the people. It’s where they wanted most of the power, which is why it’s defined in Article One of the Constitution – the first among equals. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1820 letter to Mr. Jarvis, who thought Supreme Court justices should have the power to strike down laws, “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….The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal… I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves.”

Please read the Constitution. No where in it does it say that the Supreme Court can strike down laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. No where!
Click to expand...

While I'm still undecided on Newt as a candidate, I don't necessarily disagree with him on this subject. And for those who took the time to read the article posted by the OP, Newt himself states that it would require extreme circumstances for something like this to occur.

"While abolishing judgeships and lower federal courts is a blunt tool and one whose use is warranted only in the most extreme of circumstances … it is one of many possibilities to check and balance the judiciary," he wrote. "Other constitutional options, including impeachment, are better suited" to check wayward judges. "In very rare circumstances, the executive branch might choose to ignore a court decision," he wrote.
Click to expand...
 
#25
#25
Let me tell you guys the fall-out that comes with voting for Obama. You get to watch your dollar and the economy go even further into the crapper.

You can have all your ethical beliefs you want and trick yourself to thinking that a third party vote actually means something (means you're voting for Obama and he thanks you) but it will not change the two party system.

It also means people like me who have small businesses are are debating off-shoring them are going to actually do it because we are already tied down with enough laws and obstacles. Those of you who don't actually own a business have no clue the crap these democrats have passed that makes even running a business damn near impossible.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top