Gingrich: The Judicial system only counts when it agrees with me

So much for checks and balances.

There is much to be said against the Supreme Court, of course. It's become the exact opposite of its intent: highly politicized and highly partisan.

Is Gingrich right to ignore part of the system that is clearly broken, or should he instead drive to fix it? What if it's irreparable, because the system built to fix it is also broken, or because we don't have enough good spare parts to fix it right? That, setting aside that Gingrich's part of the system faces the exact same problem?

I imagine Gingrich is all for checks and balances... of the financial variety. Punned!

Seriously though, at what point do the people taking these primaries seriously realize they are demanding the destruction of the very same sh*t about which they pretend to care?

LobsterMobster wrote:

There is much to be said against the Supreme Court, of course. It's become the exact opposite of its intent: highly politicized and highly partisan.

While this is true I find the Judicial system to be far less corrupt than the other two branches. And it isn't just the Supreme Court that the Republicans seem to have a problem with, think about what some of the Wisconsin state reps during the labor crisis were saying.

Despite the wall-to-wall entertainment value of Newt in this whole thing, I got the best laugh out of this -

“If the Supreme Court, by a plurality of the justices, may impose their own personal morality on the rest of the nation, then we are quite literally being ruled by those individuals, as opposed to giving our consent to the people’s representatives,” said Bachmann, a Minnesota representative.

Yes, Michelle. Wouldn't that be completely awful if a small handful of people could direct the moral compass of the whole nation? I mean, obviously only if they disagree with you and whatever loopy perversion of the Bible you're peddling this week.

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't that what republicans are for?

If Gingrich wins the nomination, the hard part for the Democrats is going to be deciding on exactly which crazy Gingrich quotes get into all the attack ads they'll undoubtedly run.

I, for one, support our new Emperor Gingrich.

I like Rob Delaney's take on it:

Finally, we’ve got Newt Gingrich. Seriously, we’ve still got Newt Gingrich. In 2011 we are still subjected to Newt F. Gingrich. (The “F” stands for “Are you sh*tting me? Get off my TV!”) Newt is as likely to be president as the left rear hubcap on your neighbor Randy’s light blue Buick Le Sabre. I had to get specific with that example so you could envision just how hard Newt Gingrich will NOT get the nomination. Is a majestic bald eagle going to land in your lap right now and tell you there’s a big bag of gold ingots buried under the geraniums in front of Randy’s house? No. Similarly, Newt is not going to get the nomination. In fact, if the nomination were a physical thing, he would be simultaneously shot by Rick Perry and Dick Cheney if he even approached it.
Bloo Driver wrote:

Despite the wall-to-wall entertainment value of Newt in this whole thing, I got the best laugh out of this -

“If the Supreme Court, by a plurality of the justices, may impose their own personal morality on the rest of the nation, then we are quite literally being ruled by those individuals, as opposed to giving our consent to the people’s representatives,” said Bachmann, a Minnesota representative.

Yes, Michelle. Wouldn't that be completely awful if a small handful of people could direct the moral compass of the whole nation? I mean, obviously only if they disagree with you and whatever loopy perversion of the Bible you're peddling this week.

Well on the one hand, at least loons like Bachmann are up for re-election every 2 years. SCOTUS judges are appointed and serve for life (or until they retire).

On the other hand, Newt is a douche and an idiot and seems to want to piss on the constitution that he claims to cherish.

4xis.black wrote:

Seriously though, at what point do the people taking these primaries seriously realize they are demanding the destruction of the very same sh*t about which they pretend to care?

To be fair, the Dems didn't start realizing it until a few years after the general.

I guess Newt won't have any problem with Obama ignoring the Supreme Court striking down the health care law! What's that? Ignoring the courts is something only President Newt could theoretically do?

I know I'm going to catch some flak for this but I'd kind of like Gingrich to get the nomination (and not because I want Obama to have an easy win, as I don't really, but he totally would).

Gingrich has at least presented himself as someone who wants an honest fight. He's stated that he doesn't want to go negative (though I read a headline recently along the lines of, "Romney made me go negative"). If his opponent could do the same then we could have actual debates and actual campaigns instead of a mudslinging competition. I don't want Gingrich to win, but it'd be nice to see him lose an election with some semblance of integrity.

Newt doesn't have any, though. His tenure as Speaker of the House was riddled with ethics violations, he was reprimanded by a vote of the House and he paid $300,000 dollars in fines (some details here). That's not counting the affairs and etc that's gone on.

I don't understand how anyone can take the guy seriously. Did everyone sleep through the late 90's or something?

LobsterMobster wrote:

I know I'm going to catch some flak for this but I'd kind of like Gingrich to get the nomination (and not because I want Obama to have an easy win, as I don't really, but he totally would).

Gingrich has at least presented himself as someone who wants an honest fight. He's stated that he doesn't want to go negative (though I read a headline recently along the lines of, "Romney made me go negative"). If his opponent could do the same then we could have actual debates and actual campaigns instead of a mudslinging competition. I don't want Gingrich to win, but it'd be nice to see him lose an election with some semblance of integrity.

That's not why Gingrich is saying that; he's perfectly aware that he's walking around with a giant target on his forehead. Between the adultery, the money he got from Freddie/Fannie Mae, and loads of other statements, he's given his opponents all sorts of wonderful ammo to shoot him down. He doesn't want to run with integrity, he's just trying to cover his butt for all his past mis-steps.

An honest fight would be nice but I don't think you could ever get that from Newt. I don't think honesty is in his nature.

His cries for a "no negative primary battle" are all about the Primary. He doesn't want Obama and company to have a Mitt Romney sponsored ad available for use during the general election, and he doesn't want his name being used to take down the eventual nominee. Once the general election starts, he would be quick to go all-negative: it works.

momgamer wrote:

Newt doesn't have any, though. His tenure as Speaker of the House was riddled with ethics violations, he was reprimanded by a vote of the House and he paid $300,000 dollars in fines (some details here). That's not counting the affairs and etc that's gone on.

I don't understand how anyone can take the guy seriously. Did everyone sleep through the late 90's or something?

I want the campaign to have some integrity. That does not necessarily require the candidate have integrity.

Let me dream, guys. Let me dream.

LobsterMobster wrote:
momgamer wrote:

Newt doesn't have any, though. His tenure as Speaker of the House was riddled with ethics violations, he was reprimanded by a vote of the House and he paid $300,000 dollars in fines (some details here). That's not counting the affairs and etc that's gone on.

I don't understand how anyone can take the guy seriously. Did everyone sleep through the late 90's or something?

I want the campaign to have some integrity. That does not necessarily require the candidate have integrity.

Let me dream, guys. Let me dream.

But he's demonstrated in the past that he doesn't do that in his previous campaigns or his tenure in office. You know the word for people who do the same thing over and over but expect different results.

I don't care much for Romney either; the man is a meat-puppet. He's like a dark-haired Charlie McCarthy. He just spouts stuff based on whose hand has been shoved in his back last.

If you're gonna dream, try dreaming Teddy Roosevelt will rise from the grave with his Big Stick and deal with these morons.

(in the interests of full disclosure, I'm a Republican and I can't stand ANY of these idiots)

Let me be clear momgamer, I'm pretty much sickened by each and every option we have at this point. I'd normally lean toward Ron Paul but I'm not sure the country could handle some hardcore libertarianism right now.

I'd like to vote for the Obama who campaigned for president (rather than the one who became president), or McCain before the 2008 campaign, when he earned that "maverick" name, and when he was one of the most respectable politicians in Washington. Before the machine turned him petty, shallow and cruel. Back when he'd probably have taken one look at Palin and immediately fired the guy who pitched her.

The biggest problem with the justice system is that acquiring justice is too expensive for the common man.

America: all the justice money can buy.

I think tenured judges are extremely important.

In Canada we don't have any elected judges. They are all government appointed and can only be removed by an act of the senate.

Kier wrote:

I think tenured judges are extremely important.

In Canada we don't have any elected judges. They are all government appointed and can only be removed by an act of the senate.

And that's why your nation is a hellish nightmare of politeness and gun non-ownership!

If the Executive Branch doesn't have to follow and uphold the law, why even have any other branches of government?

This is what I thought the thread was going to be about.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-c...

As far as Newt being president goes. Nobody ever went broke banking on people's stupidity.

Personally I would love a requirement to vote with the penalty being pegged to income to a maximum level coupled with a law that employers must allow employees to vote or pay 100x the fine for the person.
The reason for the maximum fine is not because I'm pro-rich people, rather, it means that fewer of them will vote. Also, they already have more power than a single vote because they have the ability to fund campaigns to a greater degree.

I was troubled by our political system in the 8th grade. It was 1995? The point is, I took French instead of Civics because I was in the advanced classes so I got a head start on a foreign language. It's the only Civics class I ever remember being offered.

I think what we really need to do is stop with the societal laissez-faire attitude. As a member of a society, you should have a duty to guide that society and a duty to make sure the next generation has the capability to take over that duty.

I might actually vote this time. I wrote my rep over http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1873:

RolandofGilead wrote:

As a member of a society, you should have a duty to guide that society and a duty to make sure the next generation has the capability to take over that duty.

The greatest evils in history were perpetrated by people who were absolutely sure they were doing the right thing. When Fred Phelps and his ilk show up at a soldier's funeral to remind the grieving family that God justly murdered their child as punishment for homosexuality, they believe they are guiding society in the right direction. They believe they are making the world better for their children.

I'm not sure Phelps actually believes what he spews. I think he and his family are cynically trying to piss people off enough to hit them, so they can sue and win big bucks. I don't think it has much to do with religion at all, anymore, it's just a string of paydays for the family.

Malor wrote:

I'm not sure Phelps actually believes what he spews. I think he and his family are cynically trying to piss people off enough to hit them, so they can sue and win big bucks. I don't think it has much to do with religion at all, anymore, it's just a string of paydays for the family.

As a guy who sees them out a lot in my area - I disagree. I have never seen anyone act violent towards them, just hate at them. I am pretty sure they believe what they are selling, and I don't know that they have ever received any payday for violence against them.

Hmm, I'm sure I read somewhere that they make lots of money off personal injury suits, but I can't remember where. Hmm. It was an article where they were pointing out that the family has like 2/3 lawyers, and they're a big family. I'll see if I can remember any more, or ideally, dig up the original link.

That's not the point. The point is that at least someone in his church does sincerely believe what he preaches.

Besides, there are way easier and less nauseating ways to get yourself punched. Trust me.

Malor wrote:

Hmm, I'm sure I read somewhere that they make lots of money off personal injury suits, but I can't remember where. Hmm. It was an article where they were pointing out that the family has like 2/3 lawyers, and they're a big family. I'll see if I can remember any more, or ideally, dig up the original link.

Either way, you will not get any disagreement from me that they are despicable. Seriously they protest every damn thing out here. My parents went to see Yanni a while ago and they were out there protesting him and homosexuality.

Yanni is straight and has been married to the same woman for a long time.