If Gingrich gets the GOP Nomination I will vote for Obama

#26
#26
IBlvNTmWrk said:
And then there's this perspective...

OpEdNews - Article: Thom Hartmann: Important! Newt is right about the Supreme Court


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.
Click to expand...


Article VI
...
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
Click to expand...

The constitution is the supreme law of the land. The laws of the US made "in Pursuance thereof", ie, constitutional laws, are the supreme law of the land.

Article III

Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Click to expand...

S1: Note, they can only be impeached for bad behavior, not because you disagree with their rulings.

S2: The SC has the jurisdiction for all cases arising under the constitution or US law.

then

S2: The first para of S2 grants jurisdiction for all cases without exception. Congress does not have the right to take jurisdiction away. The second para gives original jurisdiction to certain cases and appellate jurisdiction to the rest. Congress is given the right to make exceptions to whether a given issue falls under appellate jurisdiction or original jurisdiction. At least, that is how it reads to me.

The supreme court is given authority to judge law and fact. The constitution is the supreme law and US law is only valid if it is in pursuance thereof. The SC has the duty to judge if the law is in pursuance thereof. Simple.

Either way, Newt is an idiot.
 
Last edited:
#27
#27
Only asking but I am kinda serious.

Define bad behavior.

Seems very grey.
 
#28
#28
Newt is wrong on this issue and I've lost faith in his ability to kick Obama's butt in a debate. It would be two intellectuals trying to out intellectualize each other rather than discuss real solutions.

That said, I doubt Newt could get away with his trash and ignore the courts mentality. It is a view to his mentality though which is scary. The last 2 POTUS's have cranked up exec power to new heights
 
#29
#29
NEOCON said:
Only asking but I am kinda serious.

Define bad behavior.

Seems very grey.
Click to expand...

Not spelled out for judges but:

Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Click to expand...
 
#30
#30
So hypothetically a President could say that a judge who the president feels did something that clearly goes against the best interest of the US could be deamed as bad behavior.

I think Newt sees this bad behavior law as his reasoning for the comment.

It may be crazy but it is plausible.
 
#31
#31
RespectTradition said:
The constitution is the supreme law of the land. The laws of the US made "in Pursuance thereof", ie, constitutional laws, are the supreme law of the land.

The supreme court is given authority to judge law and fact. The constitution is the supreme law and US law is only valid if it is in pursuance thereof. The SC has the duty to judge if the law is in pursuance thereof. Simple.
Click to expand...

So a simple question, relative to "law and fact"...

Why do you think so many people (Dems and Pubs alike) are concerned about who gets appointed as a SC justice?
 
#32
#32
Because each brings their personal bias to the job and votes based upon that bias.
 
#34
#34
IBlvNTmWrk said:
But, but... bias isn't part of the job description as written by our fore fathers. It's about laws and facts.
Click to expand...

Forefathers either thought the people placed into those postions would rise above their own biases or the forefathers over-looked a huge loop hole in how our nation could be shaped.
 
#35
#35
NEOCON said:
Forefathers either thought the people placed into those postions would rise above their own biases or the forefathers over-looked a huge loop hole in how our nation could be shaped.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps they never expected the human life expectancy to more than double. The biggest reason SCJ's stopped serving for the first 100 years was either death or resignation. Now the biggest reason is retirement.
 
#40
#40
I can't believe there are people dumb enough to still vote for Obama.

How many business owners have to publicly come out and say he and his left wing buddies are killing the economy and the country before the employees actually realize they arenot kidding?
 
#41
#41
NEOCON said:
I can't believe there are people dumb enough to still vote for Obama.

How many business owners have to publicly come out and say he and his left wing buddies are killing the economy and the country before the employees actually realize they arenot kidding?
Click to expand...

The big problem for the GOP isn't finding people that oppose Obama, The problem comes when they are fired to pick somebody other than Newt/Romney. That is where the coalition breaks down.
 
#42
#42
Rasputin_Vol said:
The big problem for the GOP isn't finding people that oppose Obama, The problem comes when they are fired to pick somebody other than Newt/Romney. That is where the coalition breaks down.
Click to expand...

I personally have no real issue with Newt and only a few with Romey.

I personally believe most politicians are scum to begin with to one extent or another.

The problem is now is not the time to be making an ethical stand to show how you truly feel against the GOp when the next president is going to probably be able to pick a supreme court justice due to the age of a few and the country might not make it 4 more years honestly.

Some people just assume this country will keep going. I'm sure Romans felt the same way and they were wrong.

This country could crumble.
 
#43
#43
NEOCON said:
I can't believe there are people dumb enough to still vote for Obama.

How many business owners have to publicly come out and say he and his left wing buddies are killing the economy and the country before the employees actually realize they arenot kidding?
Click to expand...

Probably almost all of them.
 
#44
#44
For the OP, just because Newt says he would do these things doesn't mean that he could. In my view it is political rhetoric intended to feed the far right and the Tea Partiers, but bottom line is he can recommend impeachment of a judge but only the House can vote to impeach and only the Senate could hear the trial.

My biggest problem with the GOP is that they continually recycle candidates whose day has come and gone. There seems to be some idea that the voters might forget why we would not support the candidate in past elections and that maybe there might be a statute of limitations on our opinions. Both Newt and Mitt have had their chance, were found wanting in prior years and have not done anything since then to convince me they are any different before.

We need new blood.
 
#45
#45
NEOCON said:
...now is not the time to be making an ethical stand to show how you truly feel against the GOp (or DNC) when the next president is going to....
Click to expand...

hummm...where have I heard this before?

This mentality is part of the reason we are up sh*it creek without a paddle. When the people don't make a stand, they will continue to get steam rolled. The "lesser of the two evils" is still a sh*itty choice to having running the show. At some point the American people have to break the vicious cycle.
 
#46
#46
NEOCON said:
I personally have no real issue with Newt and only a few with Romey.

...

The problem is now is not the time to be making an ethical stand to show how you truly feel against the GOp when the next president is going to probably be able to pick a supreme court justice due to the age of a few and the country might not make it 4 more years honestly.
Click to expand...

Like PKT eluded to, we hear this every four years. Do you honestly not have a problem with Newt's past association with FM&FM?

Newt might lower taxes; however, he will not decrease spending and he is just as big government as Romney and Obama, without Romney's business savvy. Hence, Newt will give us exactly what Obama has given us, plus he expressly desires to make himself a tyrant, while Obama only implicitly desires this.
 
#47
#47
therealUT said:
(I cast a write-in vote)
Click to expand...

I know how you work, so I imagine this was a vote on principal, but why even bother? Just stay home.

If there weren't a candidate I felt comfortable voting for on the ballot, I wouldn't get out of bed and go down to the polls.
 
#49
#49
Thrasher865 said:
I know how you work, so I imagine this was a vote on principal, but why even bother? Just stay home.
Click to expand...

I still vote in the local elections; which, should be more important than the national elections anyway.

Thrasher865 said:
If there weren't a candidate I felt comfortable voting for on the ballot, I wouldn't get out of bed and go down to the polls.
Click to expand...

"All politics is local."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top