Calling out the black-robed tyrants and traitors

Posted on December 16, 2011 by KG

Gingrich is right on this one:
‘In a 28-page position paper entitled, “Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution,” Gingrich argues that when the Supreme Court gets it wrong constitutionally, the president and Congress have the power to check the court, including, in some cases, the power to simply ignore a Supreme Court decision.
“Our Founding Fathers believed that the Supreme Court was the weakest branch and that the legislative and executive branches would have ample abilities to check a Supreme Court that exceeded its powers,” he argues..’
The usual suspects are screaming and whining, but the fact is, the Supreme court has assumed authority and powers the framers of the Constitution never meant it to have. In addition it has become a tool of and a weapon in the hands of “progressives” and clearly anti-American organisations. The last straw, surely, is when some Justices declared their intention to take foreign law into account in their deliberations and that the Constitution is a “living, evolving” document.
That’s little more than treasonous. Gingrich is right, they need to be brought back under the control of elected representatives.
Thomas Jefferson called the idea of judicial supremacy  “a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”    more

‘..One view holds that the Court should hew as closely as possible to the written text, and to the intent of the framers as directly inferred from the text, or from contemporaneous written documents. That is commonly termed the originalist, or sometimes the strict constructionist, view. The other view insists that the Constitution should be “kept up with the times” by judicial innovation, rather than by amendment as provided for in Article 5. Keeping up with the times by way of judicial legislation requires the pea of judicial usurpation to be concealed under the shell of what is euphemistically called a “living Constitution.”
The idea of a living Constitution, given a modicum of analysis, gives the plot away. Nature being as it is, a living thing is necessarily a dying thing from the day it is born. A “living” Constitution is already on its way to the grave. The only questions are how soon will it be dead, and what progeny, if any, will it leave behind? The excuse the Court offers to keep the Constitution “living” is to claim it is applying such tests as “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” “I hate that phrase,” Justice Antonin Scalia protested in a speech on the subject. The problem, he says, is that, “[S]ocieties don’t always mature. Sometimes they rot.” If the Constitution can be regarded as an instrument that is “living” or “maturing,” that allows a majority of the Supreme Court to make of it almost anything it might imagine. If the Constitution is seen as an embodiment of eternal concepts of freedom and justice, as the Founders intended it to be, that sort of instrument is cherished more devoutly. Its covenants are kept more scrupulously.’
LIBERAL BETRAYAL of AMERICA
and the TEA PARTY FIRESTORM How the Student Riots of the Sixties Generated a Civil War to Destroy A Great Nation WILLIAM DAVIS EATON

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Calling out the black-robed tyrants and traitors

  1. Redbaiter says:
    December 17, 2011 at 10:45

    Read Mark Levin’s “Men in Black”

  2. Darin says:
    December 18, 2011 at 00:17

    I agree on principal,but when he says the congress and the president have the power to over rule the court that sets a dangerous precident.The whole ideal of a Constitution is to keep our rights from being voted away and the SCOTUS entire authority rests in the imporatant job of weighing legislation against it to see if it passes muster.

    What Gingrich is proposing would be akin to as an example the SCOTUS re-affirming 2nd ammendment rights in a case and then the POTUS or Congress over ruling them and installing a gun ban anyway.As it sits there is a way to over rule the SCOTUS,it’s called ammending the Constitution,but it isn’t easy and wasn’t intended to be.What Gingrich is proposing would lead to a full on Imperial government IMHO.

  3. KG says:
    December 18, 2011 at 06:20

    Big subject, going fishing. More later. But while I finish my coffee:
    “it’s called amending the Constitution,but it isn’t easy and wasn’t intended to be”
    True. But a Court which ignores, ignores the original intent and which invents “emanations and penumbras” of the Constitution is doing just that. It’s Jefferson’s “despotism of an oligarchy” already.
    Desperate times call for desperate measures and at least Gingrich is speaking up about what amounts to no less than a corrupt SCOTUS.

  4. Carol-Christian Soldier says:
    December 18, 2011 at 09:13

    John Jay-first Chief Justice of US Supreme Court- left that post-why-because he stated that the position did have enough power to help his constituents —
    How things have changed!!!!

    BTW- warning –don’t trust Newt —
    He talks the talk -does not walk the walk—
    Carol-CS

  6. KG says:
    December 18, 2011 at 10:07

    I don’t trust any of ’em Carol. But Gingrich is right, on this.

    • Carol-Christian Soldier says:
      December 18, 2011 at 15:49

      agreed– on this issue he is Constitutionally correct—
      Now-to the de-funding of the debauched planned parenthood-oh wait-he had the chance and did not do it!!!
      I could go on – but won’t—
      Pauuuuuuse : – )

      Carol-CS

    • Pascal says:
      December 18, 2011 at 17:21

      Yep. There was a time when you’d hear judges reprimanding each other about the need for “judicial restraint.” Precisely because of the potential for loss of influence. Their job is NOT to legislate. Hah! A quaint notion to the ninth circuit’s Reinhardt. (But I’ve always viewed that commie’s intent to push it precisely to destroy the court’s integrity. Once reined in, politburo sort of justice can then begin. A judge will know his place if he knows what’s good for him. Hence, the paradox of a Reinhardt who is no dummy and knows what his purpose has always been.)

      Once again — don’t trust Newt, as he has often carried water for those whom he’s allegedly against. I’d love to get him under truth serum for just one session.

  7. The Gantt Guy says:
    December 18, 2011 at 22:15

    KG, the Eaton book is one of the finest essays I’ve ever read of the attack on US (Western) society at the hands of progressives. The passage on SCOTUS I found most enlightening was that where he describes how the penguins have been undermining the other two branches from day one.

    “Since the earliest days of its existence the United States Supreme Court has rendered decisions indicating that it holds itself above the Constitution when a majority of the Justices feel their views are superior to constitutional requirements. The Court has chosen to ignore the fact that the Constitution, in limiting the power of government, includes limitations on the judicial power as one branch of that government. In such cases the Court has, in effect, established itself as a revolutionary tribunal when the majority has felt so inclined.”

    The case of Marbury v Madison recounted after that quote is a perfect example of judicial corruption on which the current pack of activists today model their behaviour.

    • KG says:
      December 18, 2011 at 22:25

      It’s a wonderful account, isn’t it? The sheer breadth of his research is amazing and the left stands condemned by the facts.
      I wish more people would read it.

      • The Gantt Guy says:
        December 18, 2011 at 22:36

        Yes it is. It should be required reading for high school students. Paird with writings on critical theory they might learn how their parents’ generation was duped by the left.

        Meanwhile, back n the real world…

        • KG says:
          December 18, 2011 at 22:43

          Yeah…the real world. Take a look at the reading lists approved in California ‘schools’, for example. Australian schools are no better either.

  8. GW says:
    December 18, 2011 at 23:02

    This is one I’ve been pounding on for years. The Constitution provides two ways by which it may be amended – neither of which are by judicial fiat. That worked for the first 150 of our nation. Now the question is whether five justices feel like imposing their own view of social policy on our nation as Constitutional law, irrespective of what the founder’s meant when they drafted Constitution. Abortion, Gay Rights / Marriage, and the erasure of Christianity from the public sphere are the three biggest areas. But that said, it was five climate scientists on the bench who decided that CO2 was a pollutant, and the same 5 who decided that every prisoner of war should have access to the federal civilian court system and the full protection of the Constitution as if they were citizens of the U.S.

    There is no doubt . . . no doubt . . . no doubt that one of the greatest single threats to the continued viability of the American experiment comes from unelected judges willing to make of our laws what they want it to be, rather than what the drafters of our Constitution intended it to be, coupled with a means for THE PEOPLE to amend the Constituion as they saw fit.

    Take the California decision by a gay federal judge on gay marriage. Over 7 million Californians voted, saying that they did not want to allow gay marriage in their state. Within a year, that federal judge overturned the votes, holding that gay marriage is a Constitutional right. At the time the Constitution was written, every state in the Union had laws against homosexuality. There is no question that at the time the Equal Protection clause was written, homosexuality was not within the sphere of “equal protection under the laws.” Thus this is SOLELY an issue to be decided by the people. If you want more on this . . . . an old post: http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/06/supreme-court-originalism-activism-and.html

    The thing of it is, Gingrich is the ONE person who gets this and is WILLING to try and do something about it. It should also be noted that Gingrich is the one person who understands the threat of Wahhabi / Salafi Islam, the war of ideas, and the need to engage. http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2010/08/war-against-radical-islam-battlefield.html

    For my money, Gingrich is the only person worthy of the Republican nomination. We are at a huge crossroads in so many ways. I am sure that I will be at loggerheads with Gingrich over 20% of his ideas. But the other 80% will be in total agreement with the massive changes the US needs to make to right the ship of state after 50 years of steadily growing left wing attacks on that ship.

  9. KG says:
    December 18, 2011 at 23:56

    Yes! And YES!
    Thanks for those links, GW. I hope others here go and read them for some really thorough coverage of this.
    Gingrich is far from being the “perfect” candidate, no such beast exists. But he’s a damn sight preferable to Romney and Perry. They haven’t even brought these subjects up (that I know of).

    • Pascal says:
      December 19, 2011 at 02:50

      I agree that Gingrich shows he knows what to say. What I warn is that he has repeatedly gone the other way without providing a convincing argument. He wants the nomination so much he will say what he needs to. That gives cause to remember the words of Ben Franklin.

      “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

      For instance, check on the number of times Gingrich knuckled under to the alleged Precautionary Principle, and you will be as skeptical as I that he’s no longer a climate fraud supporter.

      Men like him existed in Franklin’s time and have always. Gingrich knows the base knows that is all a scam. He also knows the players. Unless you hear him denounce the Precautionary Principle outright, do no trust him. Once in office he’ll beg us to understand “but what if they are Correct?” So much of the EPA and Interior regulations are all Precautionary Principle based, and he’d merely continue them. (Would he, could he tell us “the courts have decided,” ironically in contradiction to what he’s now saying? You betcha.)

      Gingrich has the smarts and apparent quick wit to decimate Zero in any debates. But he has been in business with Hillary’s cronies since leaving office (Ira Magaziner for one). Anyone here remember the first big govt GOP president? While out of public life, that one had been in business with the Progressive John Mitchell law firm — personal counsel for the Rockefeller RINOs.

      Because the fallout to him would be immense from the other side (money), I do NOT see how Gingrich can acknowledge how he’s bowed to the Precautionary Principle in the past, let alone publicly denounce it. So that leaves ME only with the hope that Mr. Gingrich is REALLY smart AND decent, and not merely another clever b@stard.

      Our problem is that we are starved for a real leader who is honestly on our side. Expecting that of a single man is pressing our luck enormously.

      Bottom line: We seem to be in a very real pickle. This agnostic recommends taking a hint from Pascal’s Wager. Pray. Pray to come up with a plea that can penetrate the hardened hearts of those who feel, in the absence of proof of God, they must play god.

      • GW says:
        December 19, 2011 at 03:37

        For the record, and I will have to find the cite, Gingrich has called for a complete top to bottom replacement of everyone in the EPA, stating that their anti-capitalist, green at all costs bent is so inbred in the organization that they can’t be trained out of it.

        Here’s what I think – Gingrich does have a slight preference for big government solutions over small government. But he will make massive changes that favor conservatives to as many of the systemic problems that we face as he possibly can. If we put Romney in there, he will do a good job. The economy will turn around. But when he leaves office, all the systemic problems that we face today will still exist.

        • Pascal says:
          December 19, 2011 at 04:50

          I agree with you GW that Gingrich appears to be the best of the choices we’ve been given. What rankles me is it is as if we were beggars, and ought to be happy that we’ve been given any appearance of choice at all.

          Here, take a look at this. Is this the first time you’ve seen it? I’ve evidence suggesting this is a stunt perpetrated with aid from “conservative” PJmedia. http://www.personalliberty.com/republican-presidential-nominee-poll-results/?eiid=&rmid=PRESPOLL2012_1_E2&rrid=395431893. After reading it, someone who doesn’t see what is wrong with this ought to ask me. Most elements are still present, another I’ll need to report.

          The consequences are not dire. They are simply reflective of reality. The future remains ours no matter how postmodern our “leaders” intend it to be.

  10. Robertvdl says:
    December 19, 2011 at 08:53

    I don’t trust Gingrich because he is in favor of the police state. In a police state there is NO FREEDOM.

    newt gingrich – patriot act
    http://youtu.be/atvFdbDToLs

    the founding fathers would be called terrorist in today’s America !