He's misdirecting with word salad.

Gingrich: I think many lawyers will find this a very frightening idea. They've had this run of 50 years of pretending judges are supreme, that they can't be challenged. The lawyer class defines America. We've had rulings that outlawed school prayer, we've had ruling that outlawed the cross, we've had rulings the outlawed the 10 Commandments, we've had a steady secular drive to radicalize this country away from all of its core beliefs. I mean what got me into this was the 9th Circuit saying that one nation under God is unconstitutional. We live in a country where judge Biery can literally say I will put you in jail for saying the word benediction. There's something profoundly wrong with the judicial system that has moved to that kind of extreme behavior.

Schieffer: But I would also add that what happened in that case is that an appeals court overturned that judge.

Gingrich: Right.

Schieffer: And the system worked.

Gingrich: No the local school board ended up paying large legal fees. Let me give you an example of how much this elitism permeates the system. The House Franken Commission says members of the House cannot say Merry Christmas in their official correspondence. This is absurd. But it's part of the same elite anti-religious belief structure which leads the courts to define that you're supposed to take down the Mount Soledad cross in San Diego even though it's a historic cross. And I'm just suggesting to you...I got into this originally because of two things -- The steady encroachment of secularism through the courts to redefine America as a non-religious country and the encroachment of the courts on the president's commander in chief powers, which is enormously dangerous.

Following a legal decision through the courts is "dangerous", according to Newt. He and his cronies should be able haul a judge before Congress to explain a legal decision he doesn't like. Even before all appeals are exhausted.

That's not the way our system works.

Judges are impeached for being corrupt, not for deciding cases in ways someone doesn't like. http://en.wikipedia....i/Thomas_Porteous

Congress can change the law. They can change the Constitution (if they follow the process). They can restrict the jurisdiction of certain courts. They can't try to reverse a judge's decision outside those mechanisms.

You really shouldn't be defending him on this. He doesn't know what he's talking about (as usual). His PhD was in modern European history; his dissertation was titled: "Belgian Education Policy in the Congo: 1945Â1960".

More from Wikipedia:

In 1970, Gingrich joined the history department at West Georgia College as an assistant professor. In 1974 he moved to the geography department and was instrumental in establishing an interdisciplinary environmental studies program. Denied tenure, he left the college in 1978.

He's not an expert on American history. His ideas about the US courts don't make much sense - unsurprising as it fits the pattern with him.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Following a legal decision through the courts is "dangerous", according to Newt.

no, that is according to nother, the word dangerous doesnt appear in your quoted text. Impeachment for judges is simple

And, in fact, twelve of the fifteen impeachments reaching trial in the Senate have been directed at federal judges. 757 So settled apparently is the interpretation that the major arguments, scholarly and political, have concerned the question whether judges, as well as others, are subject to impeachment for conduct which does not constitute an indictable offense

poor behavior, not necessarily criminal behavior. Behavior, like obscenity is in the eye of a local beholder
http://caselaw.lp.fi...article02/18.html

Post #352,148 by Another Scott 12/19/11 6:05:48 PM Reply	He's misdirecting with word salad. Gingrich: I think many lawyers will find this a very frightening idea. They've had this run of 50 years of pretending judges are supreme, that they can't be challenged. The lawyer class defines America. We've had rulings that outlawed school prayer, we've had ruling that outlawed the cross, we've had rulings the outlawed the 10 Commandments, we've had a steady secular drive to radicalize this country away from all of its core beliefs. I mean what got me into this was the 9th Circuit saying that one nation under God is unconstitutional. We live in a country where judge Biery can literally say I will put you in jail for saying the word benediction. There's something profoundly wrong with the judicial system that has moved to that kind of extreme behavior. Schieffer: But I would also add that what happened in that case is that an appeals court overturned that judge. Gingrich: Right. Schieffer: And the system worked. Gingrich: No the local school board ended up paying large legal fees. Let me give you an example of how much this elitism permeates the system. The House Franken Commission says members of the House cannot say Merry Christmas in their official correspondence. This is absurd. But it's part of the same elite anti-religious belief structure which leads the courts to define that you're supposed to take down the Mount Soledad cross in San Diego even though it's a historic cross. And I'm just suggesting to you...I got into this originally because of two things -- The steady encroachment of secularism through the courts to redefine America as a non-religious country and the encroachment of the courts on the president's commander in chief powers, which is enormously dangerous. Following a legal decision through the courts is "dangerous", according to Newt. He and his cronies should be able haul a judge before Congress to explain a legal decision he doesn't like. Even before all appeals are exhausted. That's not the way our system works. Judges are impeached for being corrupt, not for deciding cases in ways someone doesn't like. http://en.wikipedia....i/Thomas_Porteous Congress can change the law. They can change the Constitution (if they follow the process). They can restrict the jurisdiction of certain courts. They can't try to reverse a judge's decision outside those mechanisms. You really shouldn't be defending him on this. He doesn't know what he's talking about (as usual). His PhD was in modern European history; his dissertation was titled: "Belgian Education Policy in the Congo: 1945Â1960". More from Wikipedia: In 1970, Gingrich joined the history department at West Georgia College as an assistant professor. In 1974 he moved to the geography department and was instrumental in establishing an interdisciplinary environmental studies program. Denied tenure, he left the college in 1978. He's not an expert on American history. His ideas about the US courts don't make much sense - unsurprising as it fits the pattern with him. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #352,149 by boxley 12/19/11 6:28:17 PM Reply	so you need to provide the salad dressing? Following a legal decision through the courts is "dangerous", according to Newt. no, that is according to nother, the word dangerous doesnt appear in your quoted text. Impeachment for judges is simple And, in fact, twelve of the fifteen impeachments reaching trial in the Senate have been directed at federal judges. 757 So settled apparently is the interpretation that the major arguments, scholarly and political, have concerned the question whether judges, as well as others, are subject to impeachment for conduct which does not constitute an indictable offense poor behavior, not necessarily criminal behavior. Behavior, like obscenity is in the eye of a local beholder http://caselaw.lp.fi...article02/18.html Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #352,150 by Another Scott 12/19/11 6:54:57 PM Reply	Last word of the quote. ;-)
Post #352,151 by boxley 12/19/11 7:11:42 PM Reply	Ah, missed it because it had nothing to do with your point Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #352,152 by Another Scott 12/19/11 7:20:40 PM Reply	But it was part of Newt's. HTH.

Welcome to IWETHEY!