COMMENTARY | Hopefully, Iowans have a keen ear for dangerous ideology being spewed by most of the candidates such as Newt Gingrich's latest appeal to the authoritative and intolerant conservative base of the Republican Party. Take, for instance, the former Speaker of the House's suggestion on CBS' "Face The Nation" that liberal judges be arrested and subpoenaed for questionable -- to Gingrich and the like-minded -- rulings.
Gingrich made the statement he would as president send U.S. Marshals after judges who issued radical decisions and have them stand before Congress to explain their positions. Gingrich told Bob Schieffer the judges should defend their decisions and/or face impeachment.
Just because they disagree with the administration's -- or Gingrich's -- worldview, a sitting justice should be arrested or subpoenaed?
In his argument, Gingrich said, "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."
They should be frightened. Gingrich is suggesting authoritative executive oversight of one of the checks to the constitutionality of law. But what about appeals and judicial review boards and such? Are those not challenges to decisions made by the courts? It is just such challenges that often work and see overthrown overly radical or illogical decisions.
Gingrich uses as examples of secular encroachment certain cases regarding religious artifacts (the removal of crosses and the Ten Commandments from government properties) and a House Commission directive prohibiting saying "Merry Christmas" (not a judicial decision).
His appeal, it would appear, is to the authoritarian Christian voter.
A President Gingrich would impose his Christian-based worldview on the country despite the fact the nation is protected by the tolerance of all religions by the First Amendment. Rule accordingly, he says, or face arrest, censure and impeachment.
But what good is a legal decision that does not find its ultimate answer in ethical fairness to all -- that which our system is designed to do at present -- but instead is qualified or directed by the expectations of the political regime that holds power? That already exists to an extent in the appointment of judges. But Gingrich wants to instill fear of making oppositional rulings and impose immediate recall? Why not simply rule from the Oval Office by dictate and fiat?
vlad the impaler steven tyler michael lohan fiddler on the roof rally squirrel rally squirrel scumbag steve
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.