Former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is running for President in the Republican Tea Party primary, recently told an audience in Iowa that the Supreme Court is essentially a myth, and is unconstitutional. He told his teabagging followers that Congress can pass a law weakening the power of the Judicial branch of government. "In the American system, if you read the Constitution correctly — this is why I wrote 'A Nation Like No Other' — if you read the Federalist Papers correctly, the fact is the Congress can pass a law and can limit the Court’s jurisdiction. It’s written directly in the Constitution...There is no Supreme Court in the American Constitution."
Hmmmm....how then would Mr. Gingrich explain the opening of Article 3 of the US Constitution which reads, "The judicial power of the United States[] shall be vested in one Supreme Court.” Seems pretty clear to me, but I am not considered a conservative intellectual.
Think Progress points out that not only is Gingrich inaccurate (as he usually is), but he is also unoriginal. Michele Bachmann floated the same nonsense two months ago, and notorious racist Republican Senator, Jesse Helms, tried it in the 1980s.
2 comments:
It's pretty ironic how you've revealed yourself to be the moron here (or at least intellectually dishonest). I notice you didn't bother quoting Gingrich's very next sentence which puts his quote into context.
He did not say the words "Supreme Court" don't appear in the Constitution; he's saying that there's not SUPREME Court (listen to the emphasis on the audio) -- i.e., the court is not "supreme" over the other two branches of government.
But why bother being honest when you serve your agenda, right?
Nice try, Mr. Anonymous, but Gingrich is wrong, as usual. And you are too. No one has ever argued that the Supreme Court is supreme over the other branches (which is kind of why those who understand the Constitution use the phrase "three co-equal branches"). That is a red herring. It is what you righties do all the time to make your asinine points. The Supreme is co-equal, and ever since Marbury v. Madison (a decision that not even Scalia disputes), judicial revue has been an essential part of American constitutional law. Crack a book once in a while, man.
Judicial review is necessary because a legislative branch could, theoretically pass any law, and an executive could sign it. However, it still may be unconstitutional (i.e. passing a law barring redheads from serving in the military). Just because something passes Congress does not make it automatically constitutional.
I understand this. You and Mr. Gingrich do not.
To quote your hero, "There is no Supreme Court in the American Constitution." Those are his words, numbnuts, not mine.
Post a Comment