Sorry, I had to use this as a chance to make a Star Wars reference.
According to Newt Gingrich, he would, as president, "abolish whole courts to be rid of judges whose decisions he feels are out of step with the country." As historical precedent, he cites Thomas Jefferson. In 1802, Jefferson "led the abolition of three federal circuits and 16 judgeships that had been created — and filled — by his political foes before he and his party took power" (Gardner). Jefferson, the man who opposed emancipation (Loewen) and who forced Native Americans west (like so many after him). Citing a single case of historical precedent means that President Obama could cite Japanese Internment Camps during WWII and put all people of Middle Eastern background into prisons. There is a reason that things like that do not happen all the time: only the most popular presidents can get away with it — Revolutionary heroes, or leaders in wartime.
But there is another problem: what exactly does Newt Gingrich feel is "out of step with the country"? "In campaign speeches, he [Newt] likes to criticize by name a federal judge in Texas who blocked prayer in public school." So to Newt, anything slightly anti-Christian is "out of step with the country." Or is it that we need Christian education? Since he cited historical precedent to create constitutionality, should he not realize that the First Amendment gives Freedom of Religion (No, I will not be citing that for you)? No matter what he believes, promoting religion in public educational institutions is not okay. Parents can do that at home if they so wish. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also believe there is this thing called Sunday School, for teaching about Christianity.
The ability to prosecute and fire judges for their decisions is a major problem for separation of powers, which brings me to the Star Wars reference: it would allow the President to gain control of the courts, which would create an executive that is far too powerful; even today, people complain about the government's overreach, and this would only compound that problem. Somewhat amusing, since this problem s being proposed by a Republican; small government, right? I guess not.
Of course, he can't win with all this. "Gingrich has been emboldened by his reception on the campaign trail, where conservative voters have cheered his view that judges who have ruled in favor of gay marriage or against prayer in school are 'activist' who should be thrown out." I wonder if Gingrich realizes that most of the nation is not conservative; he's just scaring everyone else. Even members of the right wing have criticized what he's saying about "activist judges." He's alienating his own would-be base!
Gardner, Amy, and Matt DeLon. "Newt Gingrich's Assault on 'activist Judges' Draws Criticism, Even
from Right - The Washington Post. "Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News &
Analysis. 17 Dec. 2011. Web. 19 Dec. 2011. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/newt-
gingrichs-assault-on-activist-judges-draws-criticism-even-from-
right/2011/12/17/gIQAoYa80O_story_1.html>.
James, W. Loewen. Lies My Teacher Told Me. 2nd ed. [S.l.]: New, 2005. Print.
According to Newt Gingrich, he would, as president, "abolish whole courts to be rid of judges whose decisions he feels are out of step with the country." As historical precedent, he cites Thomas Jefferson. In 1802, Jefferson "led the abolition of three federal circuits and 16 judgeships that had been created — and filled — by his political foes before he and his party took power" (Gardner). Jefferson, the man who opposed emancipation (Loewen) and who forced Native Americans west (like so many after him). Citing a single case of historical precedent means that President Obama could cite Japanese Internment Camps during WWII and put all people of Middle Eastern background into prisons. There is a reason that things like that do not happen all the time: only the most popular presidents can get away with it — Revolutionary heroes, or leaders in wartime.
But there is another problem: what exactly does Newt Gingrich feel is "out of step with the country"? "In campaign speeches, he [Newt] likes to criticize by name a federal judge in Texas who blocked prayer in public school." So to Newt, anything slightly anti-Christian is "out of step with the country." Or is it that we need Christian education? Since he cited historical precedent to create constitutionality, should he not realize that the First Amendment gives Freedom of Religion (No, I will not be citing that for you)? No matter what he believes, promoting religion in public educational institutions is not okay. Parents can do that at home if they so wish. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also believe there is this thing called Sunday School, for teaching about Christianity.
The ability to prosecute and fire judges for their decisions is a major problem for separation of powers, which brings me to the Star Wars reference: it would allow the President to gain control of the courts, which would create an executive that is far too powerful; even today, people complain about the government's overreach, and this would only compound that problem. Somewhat amusing, since this problem s being proposed by a Republican; small government, right? I guess not.
Of course, he can't win with all this. "Gingrich has been emboldened by his reception on the campaign trail, where conservative voters have cheered his view that judges who have ruled in favor of gay marriage or against prayer in school are 'activist' who should be thrown out." I wonder if Gingrich realizes that most of the nation is not conservative; he's just scaring everyone else. Even members of the right wing have criticized what he's saying about "activist judges." He's alienating his own would-be base!
Gardner, Amy, and Matt DeLon. "Newt Gingrich's Assault on 'activist Judges' Draws Criticism, Even
from Right - The Washington Post. "Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News &
Analysis. 17 Dec. 2011. Web. 19 Dec. 2011. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/newt-
gingrichs-assault-on-activist-judges-draws-criticism-even-from-
right/2011/12/17/gIQAoYa80O_story_1.html>.
James, W. Loewen. Lies My Teacher Told Me. 2nd ed. [S.l.]: New, 2005. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment