“…A Very Frightening Idea”
by Stephen Foster
“I think many lawyers will find this a very frightening idea. They’ve had this run for 60 years of pretending that judges are supreme. That they can’t be challenged, [that] the lawyer class defines America. We’ve had rulings that outlawed school prayer, we’ve had rulings that outlawed the cross, we’ve had rulings that outlawed the Ten 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 Ninth 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 the word ‘benediction.’ There’s something profoundly wrong with a judicial system that has moved to that kind of extreme behavior.”
Bob Schieffer: But I would add here that an appeals court overturned that judge…
“Right, but that means the local school…”
Bob Schieffer: And the system worked.
“No, the local school board, under the current, ended up paying large legal fees…
“Let me give you an example of how much this elitism permeates the system. The House franking commission says members of the House cannot say ‘Merry Christmas’ in official correspondence. Well 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 Mt. Soledad cross in San Diego, even though it’s a historic cross.
“Uh, 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.”
—Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, CBS Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, December 18, 2011
Now, we know the context from which this blogger views things; so we will presumably have time and opportunity to further discuss that perspective.
Nevertheless, in case you missed it, or believe that the above quotation begs for context, watch ‘Part One’ of this brief interview.
I am glad to see that Stephen is finally getting frightened by activist judges, they are extremely dangerous to the freedoms of Americans. You can read the complete transcript of the interview at http://www.newt.org/news/newt-defends-constitution-elitist-judges
You can also see more in depth information he has provided at: http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf
I don't support Newt for President as he has some big government Progressive views which is something this country has to desperately get away from but one thing about him, he is an idea man and most of the successes of the Clinton administration can be traced to the actions of Newt, the famous projected surplus and welfare reform, even balanced the budget etc. But very important to remember the judicary is one of the three branches of government and not something that can simply over-rule the other branches, which he points out in his role as a historian.
Very worthwhile to spend some time reading the information provided. Thank you Stephen.
May I suggest that even more dangerous to American democracy is a legislative branch elected by a segment of voters whose principal source of political information are cable talk shows. Our founding fathers had read the classics and espoused Enlightenment understandings concerning the nature of what happens if pure democracy is not checked and so created a system that would balance the actions of populist elements. Three cheers for an unelected group of judges who are not beholden to the whims of mob behavior.
Yes, the founding fathers feared pure democracy. That is why they gave us a republican form of government, with checks and balances. Yes, judges are not beholden to the whims of mobocracy. the doctrine of judicial review was established early on in our republic. The problem arises when the courts become politicized themselves and judges try to usurp the legislative branch by making law instead of interpreting it.
This is beautiful. The quotes excerpted above clearly provide a Rorschach-type test for two atoday.org colleagues with whom we seldom agree.
Since these two colleagues, Ron and Erv, have very different perspectives on this, it should come as no surprise that agreement with one these individuals continues to be elusive. We nonetheless certainly appreciate Ron Corson’s gratitude for our having posted this information.
The fact of the matter is that while any of the three branches of the American federal government, or any combination of two of them, can be frightening when operating outside of their constitutional parameters or in violation of the separation of powers principles; when a prospective head of the executive branch threatens to arbitrarily ignore judicial rulings that offend his cultural sensibilities—because said rulings offend his cultural sensibilities, or that of the majority (of Americans)—everyone should find this a “frightening idea.”
It is, of course, especially frightening—or ominous—to consider that what actually animates this outlandish advocacy for ignoring the rule of law is a particular appellate court’s regard for the principle of separation of church and state in its legal interpretation and application of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Stephen writes: "when a prospective head of the executive branch threatens to arbitrarily ignore judicial rulings that offend his cultural sensibilities"
arbitrarily, if you read the transcript or his paper you see nothing aritrary about it. But that is the problem with those who insert their prejudice into a discussion, their presumptions become the thing they fear most, quite apart from what the person actually said.
As for Ervin's concern about cable talk shows. If only our electorate took even that amount of time to understand what is happening in politics.
Of course it would be arbitrary—and dangerously so—if a President (or a congressional judiciary committee) would ever decide that because his or her cultural sensibilities were disturbed, that they would ever, on that basis, either disband a federal appeals court, or threaten to; or ignore a ruling of the an appellate court or Supreme Court because of personal fear of “a steady encroachment of secularism through the courts, to redefine America as a non-religious country.”
This begs the question: would such a President define America as a religious country?
It seems as if the US can never achieve balance. Both the people and the government overreact to perceived "dangers." One recent example is the recommendation from the NTSB that even hands free cell phones should not be used while driving. What next, no talking to the passengers? I can see the headlines, “father of 3 arrested for responding to question form back seat, “’are we there, yet?’”
When the founding fathers crafted the Constitution they wanted to avoid creating a "Christian Nation." Europe was full of "Christian" nations. They'd been there; done that, and recognized the need for something much different. And so the first amendment was designed to guard against that. But neither did they intend to ban all mention of God by anyone connected with the government.
There is no constitutional guarantee against someone being "offended." So atheists don't like the mention of God. So what? No one is forcing them to go to church or send their kids to a parochial school. I hear a lot of things each day that I don't like, but should I campaign for new laws to prevent me from hearing or seeing everything that is offensive? Lunacy seems to be rampant these days.
On the other hand, those who want to intermingle church with state, under the false notion that the founding fathers envisioned a “Christian Nation,” are either woefully ignorant of history, or have more sinister plans in the works. I like to believe the former. Whatever happened to logic and common sense?
OK Stephen, apparently you don't know what arbitrary means. It means:
4. capricious; unreasonable;
Now here is What Newt said in the interview and you can point out what you think is arbitrary:
"
Gingrich: They'd just been created and they'd been appointed. And he abolishes them. Over half of all the judges. Jackson says of the court, they think the bank of the United States is constitutional, I don't think it's constitutional. Their opinion doesn't matter to me. I'm the president, they're over the judiciary, he vetoes it. Lincoln spends part of his first inaugural because people tend to forget, the Supreme Court in Dred Scott, ruled that slavery extended to the whole country. And Lincoln said very specifically, that's the law of the case that is not the law of the land. Nine people cannot create the law of the land or you have eliminated our freedom as a people.
Schieffer: Mr. Speaker, the old saying in legal circles is that the Supreme Court is not last because it's right, it's right because it's last. There comes a point where you have to accept things as the law of the land. How do you decide, how does the president decide what's a good law and I'm going to obey the Supreme Court or what's a bad law and I'm just going to ignore it?
Gingrich: I think it depends on the severity of the case. I'm not suggesting that the congress and the president review every decision. I'm suggesting that when there are decisions, using Boumediene as an example, in which they're literally risking putting civil liberty rules in battlefields, it's utterly irrational for the Supreme Court to take on its shoulders the defense of the United States. It's a violation of the constitution.
Schieffer: Brown vs. Board of Education was a very controversial decision. There were large number of people in the United States that didn't want to do that. Are you saying that should the president have been so disposed, he could have just ignored that?
Gingrich: I'm saying that in the case of Dred Scott, which was an equally important and terrible decision, remember the court's sometimes right, the court's sometimes wrong.
Schieffer: Well that was then, this is now.
Gingrich: No, no, no. You can't be sure what the next court will do and the question is, as a people do we have the right to take the 9th Circuit Court, which ruled the one nation under God was unconstitutional in the pledge of allegiance. Do we as a people, where over 90 percent of the people believe that's false, the Senate and the House overwhelmingly rejected it immediately. They had a vote almost immediately, overwhelmingly rejected it.
Schieffer: Alright here's another one, this is now. Next year the Supreme Court is going to take up Obama's healthcare proposal. What if they throw it out? Can President Obama then say I'm sorry boys, I'm just going to go ahead and implement it. Could he do that?
Gingrich: The key question is, what would the congress then do? Because there are three branches…
Schieffer: But could he do that?
Gingrich: He could try to do that. And the congress would then cut him off. Here's the key — it's always two out of three. If the president and the congress say the court is wrong, in the end the court would lose. If the congress and the court say the president is wrong, in the end the president would lose. And if the president and the court agreed, the congress loses. The founding fathers designed the constitution very specifically in a Montesquieu spirit of the laws to have a balance of power not to have a dictatorship by any one of the three branches."
There is a significant (obvious?) difference between an arbitrary process and an arbitrary decision.
Any decision to ignore a Supreme Court ruling, or to advocate for the disbanding of an appellate court, or the impeachment of an appellate judge because your personal cultural sensibilities have been offended, or you perceive that those sensibilities of the majority have been offended, is an arbitrary one.
The process by which an appellate court is disbanded or a Supreme Court ruling worked around (or evaded) cannot be arbitrary.
However, if you prefer, if this concept is indeed a ‘stumbling block’ for you (as we say in church) we can (for you) amend the statement to delete “arbitrarily;” to wit “…when a prospective head of the executive branch threatens to ignore judicial rulings that offend his cultural sensibilities—because said rulings offend his cultural sensibilities, or that of the majority (of Americans)—everyone should find this a “frightening idea.”
That is good, and you let us know when some politician proposes that…but it may help to have them actually say that rather then for you to assume that, because your assumptions don't equate to facts.
In the American system of government, the decisions of the executive branch are essentially vested in one person, by the way.
Sometimes Newt sounds like a mad man. And then, other times, not so much.
I think we are all aware, aren't we, that there are additional alternatives after a Supreme Court decision. Congress can simply enact new legislation, which starts the whole process over again. Whatever the court found unconstitutional can be deleted or otherwise altered to bring it into compliance with the Constitution. And, of course, the whole process can start again at any level, from "grass roots" up, differently, to some extent, within states and counties. There is a lot of latitude for redress of disagreements with the Supreme Court. Some executive orders, of course, can also "correct" issues when the Court opinion is considered wrong. My opinion of President Jackson is not very positive. If I am remembering history correctly, one issue in which he over-ruled the Supreme Court was the native American removal ("trail of tears"). That was a pretty sad chapter in American history….
I am most dissappointed in the American people that they didn't rise up in mass and denunciate Newt Gingrich in the strongest of terms. It is astounding to me that one who is deemed to be so "smart" is completely ignorant with respect to the most most fundamental tenants of the U.S. Constitution. A seventh grader in civics class is taught that all three branches of government are co-equal. That is the reason that a U.S. President can ignore a subpoena from Congress to testify. I think Judge Serica tried it during Watergate and President Nixon never did appear despite the fact he ultimately resigned because the free press revealed his most serious failing, he lied about what he knew and when he knew it.
In only one area of law, that is Constitutional Law, the U.S. Supreme court reigns supreme, even over the executive branch and the legislative branch. For example, several years ago, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion where the Court vitiated the "three prong" test the Court had used for 50 years in determining whether a statute served as an undue burden on the free exercise of a religious practice. The U.S. Congress simply said, "we'll fix that, we will simply create a federal statute wherein we will reestablish the 3 prong test in a federal statute. Congress, with an overwhelming majority passed legislation that essentially reestablished the old rule with respect to the free exercise clause. No sooner than the president signed that legislation, the Court ruled the new statute unconstituional. So, if Newt Gingrich thinks he has the power as President to drag federal judges in front of any kind of a tribunal or vitiate any of the Circuits of the US appellate system, he is a FOOL!!
LP wrote:
"I think Judge Serica tried it during Watergate and President Nixon never did appear despite the fact he ultimately resigned because the free press revealed his most serious failing, he lied about what he knew and when he knew it."
You would be wrong then, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon
As for your three prong text I assume you are referring to title IX and you would also be wrong. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX
For history I think Newt has a much better track record the LP!
Isn't a bit nieve to think that activist judges are something more than a very objectional sympton of a more general deterioration of our society and the humanity that comprises it? How can Christians behave as if we expected the U.S. Constitution to forever guard our freedoms when we know that the powers of darkness have not yet been banished from our domain? I think Erv is right if a reversal of the trend is to occur it will require a reform in the elements of society that have the most to do with how we view the world. But, I believe that "Madison Avenue" and "Wall Street" have been shaping our demise long before the cable networks. The influence of the entertainmet industry has always been suspect to many, but it has been the influence of advertising and commerce that crept imperceptibly like a glaicier changing our spiritual and social landscape.
Well, when a prospective President suggests that he/she is very willing to alter, that is re-alter or “rebalance,” the balance of powers because he/she personally disagrees with judicial rulings that have offended the majority’s cultural sensibilities, then “Houston we have a problem.”
The former Speaker says that he has a plan that he has been working on (since 2002) whereby judges would be subpoenaed to testify to Congress in explanation of certain controversial decisions they have made.
At a recent televised debate in Sioux City, Iowa, Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly noted that at two conservative former attorneys general had described former Speaker Gingrich’s plan as “dangerous” and “irresponsible,” and indicated that it would alter the balance of powers.
“It alters the balance because the courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful,” admitted Gingrich. “I’ve been working on this project since 2002 when the Ninth Circuit court said that ‘one nation under God’ is unconstitutional in the Pledge of Allegiance. And I decided that if you had judges that were so radically anti-American that they thought ‘one nation under God’ was wrong, they shouldn’t be on the court.”
When CBS moderator Bob Schieffer asked him how the subpoena of these judges might be enforced, asking him “Would you send the Capitol police down to arrest him?” Gingrich responded “If you had to, or you'd instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshall. Let's take the case of Judge Biery. I think he should be asked to explain a position that radical. How could he say he's going to jail the superintendent over the word benediction and invocation? Because before…because then I would encourage impeachment. But before you move to impeachment, you'd like to know why he said it. Now clearly since the congress has the power…
Schieffer: What if he didn't come? What if he said, no thank you, I'm not coming?
Gingrich: Well that is what happens in impeachment cases. In an impeachment case, the House studies whether or not, the House brings them in, the House subpoenas them. And as a general rule they show up. I mean, but you're raising the core question, are judges above the rest of the constitution? Or are judges one of the three co-equal branches?
However when previously presented with the hypothetical of President Obama refusing to acknowledge struck down provisions of the health care legislation he has signed, Gingrich said that he could try to ignore the Supreme Court, but would be checked by Congress.
Now, hold that thought. So, what if in another hypothetical the Court struck down a popular yet clearly unconstitutional law; and Congress was controlled by the President’s party, such that Congress doesn’t check the President? What if most state legislators and a majority of governors were also in support of the President in defiance of the Court? What of the rule of law then; under those circumstances? A nation of laws would have then, instead, become—officially—a nation of men.
Now when you factor in the fact that concern about “a steady encroachment of secularism through the courts, to redefine America as a non-religious country” was actually the catalyst for this plan by a prospective President of the United States, in whom the decision making power of the executive branch of the federal government is vested, you have reason for concern; especially from the perspective of those who subscribe to historical SDA eschatology, but even from the perspectives of former (George W. Bush administration) Attorneys General Alberto Gonzalez and Michael Mukasey.
Traditional Adventist eschatology is kind of beholden to a kind of Alice in Wonderland approach to the contemporary world. Despite the best efforts of the moral majority and their political allies, America political culture remains totally secular – – and America is the most religious nation of any First World country! The only way that this is going to change is through some major economic, political, and social upheaval. It's kind of interesting to read — even on the Adventist Today website — that we are on the brink of such an upheaval. The only problem with this appraoch is that the same "just around the corner" scenario has been advocated for many generations by Adventist evangelists and others. I guess the average Adventist has a very short memory and our converts have just started reading the standard Adventist approach to this topic so are not aware of how long classical Adventism has been proclaiming that the "End is Near–Again" .
Has Dr. Taylor forgotten that even the apostles preached in terms of a "soon coming" of Christ? The coming of Christ has always been presented as "soon," or "near." Jesus told a parable that warned against the attitude that "my Lord delayeth His coming." That leads to complacency. We've been admonished that "the final events will be rapid ones." Recent events have shown how rapid things can change. Few anticipated the breaching of the Berlin Wall and the rapid demise of the USSR, yet these events happened in quick succession. Of a similar nature was the brief show of unity in the nation's capital after the events of Sept. 11, 2001. It is not hard to envision a similar scenario on a much larger scale when disaster after disaster occurs in rapid succession–as we've been told that they will.
“Soon” is obviously a relative term, but in terms of eternity, even a hundred years is a short time. We should not abandon our message of soon return of Christ, or downplay the signs that are occurring around us. The scenario outlined in GC could happen at any time. All the pieces are in place. That was not the case 25 years ago, when the cold war was still in progress and there were 2 superpowers. Now there is one, and, coupled with the rise in influence of the religious right, it is not too difficult to see how the US could lead out in the manner described in GC.
But those who see a Sunday law behind every move of Congress hurt our credibility, and are like the little boy who cried wolf. A little common sense goes a long way.
Ervin Taylor has a good point. I'm not going to say one shouldn't believe in traditional Adventist eschatology, as that is a matter for Scripture to judge. However, I think we turn ourselves into pretzels trying to build this eschatology up by current events. On this very site, we see have Adventists suggesting that we reconsider the Bible. And yet the outside world is supposed to be so religous that it is on the edge of springing a Sunday law. It could happen, but let's not pretend that it's readily apparent from current events. Now as to Newt Gingrich's plan one should not need to be an Adventist nor a political liberal to view it as "…a very frightening idea," or as George Will put it from a conservative perspective: "A Sinister Descent into sinister radicalism." http://www.washingtonpost.com/
That is one of the problems of George Will, he is good at pointing out the problems but not good at pointing to solutions. Thus in one recent article of his on Prop 22 in California he writes:
"Brown's reasoning would establish an unassailable tyranny of a minority — judges — over any California majority. Brown, 70, California's former and perhaps future governor, once was a Jesuit seminarian. One American Heritage dictionary definition of "jesuitical" is "given to subtle casuistry"; one of that dictionary's definitions of "casuistry" is "specious or excessively subtle reasoning to rationalize or mislead." These definitions, although unfair to Jesuits, are descriptive of Brown's argument. " http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will011509.php3
He realizes there is a problem with the judicial activism, but seems he has no ideas on how to deal with the tyranny of the minority — judges. There definately needs to be judicial reform and the removal of judges for life. In fact the 9th circuit court has been out of control for years. I don't think Newt's plan is intimidation but then if someone has their way in everything anyone that steps in to curb it will be considered intimidating to them. Some things are just travesties like this Will wrote about a while back:
"The recent decision most dismaying to them was Kelo (2005), wherein the court upheld the constitutionality of a city government using its eminent domain power to seize property for the spurious “public use” of transferring it to wealthier interests who will pay higher taxes to the seizing government. Conservatives wish the court had been less deferential to elected local governments. (Stevens later expressed regret for his part in the Kelo ruling.)" http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/george-will-on-judicial-activism/
For the Adventist Eschatologist out there they should remember that all of their dire predictions could come about through the judicial branch as well…Remember the Supreme Court is made up mainly of Roman Catholics, that should be frightening to the good Adventist traditionalist. I mean once the court start taking away property it is just a small step to religion isn't it. You know, it is for the public good, just as the town taking over private property to build something that would bring in more taxes, (in this case it was never even built) so maybe your expression of religion my interfer with someone's beliefs. though admitedly that probably won't happen until there is some money involved, so keep your eyes on the rich Atheists…George Soros I would suggest is a likely player in such a game.
Just a little something for Stephen to be frighted of.
There is no question but that the reality that the SCOTUS is now predominantly Roman Catholic—and devoid of any Protestants—is of concern to not only historical SDAs; but other Protestant Christians as well.
Frankly, the concern from my perspective is that most of them also vote in a bloc and view practically everything, including the Establishment Clause, similarly if not identically.
It is reasonably possible to be simultaneously concerned—and vigilant—about a nearly monolithic SCOTUS majority and a prospective President with ambitions to subpoena or disband segments of the judiciary because he disagrees with them.
question?
When do we the people stand up for what we believe in? Will we just be pushed along on this one?
I think the day will come soon when ( especially Christians ) will have to stand up and be heard or all the freedoms we have come to love will be removed.
I must be missing something. What is preventing anyone in the United States and most Western democracies from "standing up for what we believe in?" Is there anyone preventing classical Adventist evangelists from saying most anything they wish no matter how . . . (I will be nice at this point) . . . out of touch with reality their statements might be?
Because no one has placed a time emphasis, nor attempted to introduce a timing element to events, trends, attitudes, personalities, factions or ideologies of eschatological interest to historical Adventists, and because 2 Peter 3:4 handles this better, there is no need to respond to “any-day-now” commentary with reference to the former Speaker’s approach to the judiciary.
Perhaps what prompts the seemingly reflexive suggestion of date setting at the mere mention of eschatology is the fact that eschatological prophecy is itself (by definition) suggestive of end-time events as predicted in Bible prophecy; and even those who don’t believe there is a God who has divulged such information, perceive that current events and end-time events may be synonymous in this context.
The thing to remember is that history and/or prophecy are the results of processes in which certain events, trends, attitudes, philosophies, and factions have had to—or will have had to—come into play, as the case may be, in order for things to have happened as they have, or to happen as they’ve been predicted.
This is one of the reasons why those who report (journalists) on these processes—which have also been called recent history or prophecy in fulfillment—often refer to the combinations of these things as “developments.”
Along these lines, the events predicted in SDA eschatological doctrine, particularly in relation to the United States, are such that certain of these events are only possible in violation of fundamental constitutional principles and provisions.
For this reason, if for none other, things that are constitutionally suspect—even to those unfamiliar with Adventist eschatology—invariably get the attention of those who are both familiar with, and subscribe to, SDA eschatology.
“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist…,” (said Kaiser Soze/Verbal in The Usual Suspects).