Doocy: Gingrich Was "Historical, He Was Accurate, He Was Brilliant" When "Talking About Out-Of-Control Judges And The Courts"
December 16, 2011 6:46 am ET
From the December 16 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Media Matters: Changing The Tone, Or Changing Our Understanding?
Media Matters: Fox's 2012 GOP Influence
Media Matters: The Fox News divide that never was
Nah;)
You can not associate those decriptions with a notorious liar and deceiver.
Newt Gingrich is a far worse man than Herman Cain, yet Fox News and conservatives did not give him (cain) the star-treament they're giving Newt Gingrich.
They could be both...
I guess that The GOP loves that darn constitution, except for the parts with a socialist slant to them.
Can you imagine the thermonuclear reaction the RW would have if Obama had tried threatening to restrict the power and authority of Judges? I dont use the term often, but this is the ultimate example of IOKIYAR.
Perhaps it is YOU who needs to read a history book instead of inventing history in the garbage you write, too.
Like I said, a 21st Century President can't do much without Congress.
So much for Professor Gingrich.
Marbury v. Madison is a complex case. What it teaches is two things: precendent, and how judges depend on it. Since we were a new Republic and beginning to codify our law (three independent branches of government), it was the first to codify our own law. Since or Republic was new and had three new and independent branches of government we need to set our own rules of government.
Second, the Supreme Court was given much power according to the Constiution.
Sorry, I hit the wrong button.
The Supreme Court was not given any power by the Constiution. However, Marshall saw the weakness in the Constituion and decided to rectify it. OK, he was a Federalist, but he understood the Constitution, and the problems it faced.
Marshall was a learned man. He understood common law. It was why Marbury v. Madison is an important case.
He understood precedent. He put the Supreme Court and and lower Courts on the map.
-Bob Dylan
Krugman summed up Newt well:
>^o.-^<
Every one of them would have been disqualified. OK, maybe Ron Paul could be called the winner, he did address the actual questions, and seemed to have his facts in order. That's why he was called "dangerous" by Bachmann.
In this election year, the emphasis is going to be on jabs aimed at the president, more than any successful arguments with the other Republicans. Newt seems the most focused on blaming Obama for everything,so I'd guess that, although he really says nothing, the FoxBots will be convinced that he did some pretty fancy debatin'.
2. If lawmakers could write clear, concise legislation in the first place, they wouldn't need to rely on courts to sort out the purpose of it. As it is, Congress punts responsibility to the courts and then complains when interpretations don't come down correctly.
IMHO
Activist is only a matter of opinion.
Is that a general comment, or specific to this example?
To try to bring this back up to a higher level...
Just remember the Congressional Repulicans overwhelmingly rebuked him and fined him for corruption.
As the father of four sons, I can name five guys (birth dates spanning 1/2 a century) who find this behavior appalling.
I'll take Obama any day over Newt. Obama knows his history, he knows the Constitution and he is cool as a cucumber.
Because I've got news for these idiots. For many, many years now, the judicial activism, in the sense of reversing legislative enactments on the basis of their unconstitutionality and substituting the justice's only personal political preference has been coming almost entirely from the right.
These three fools (or more accurately the Ailes acolytes who write their scripts) don't care about judicial activism, not really, as a principle. They care about decisions with which they are told they must disagree. If they are told to agree with a decision, it is by definition not judicial activism, and the judge is not "out-of-control".
And as the country gets more and more progressive, and it will, we will see more and more such conservative judicial activism. Newt is unwittingly on dangerous ground here.
"Brilliant"? A possum would be brilliant to Doocey. He is so dumb it hurts my head to listen to him. But not even he is as bad as Beetlebrow.
I remember how hard I laughed when failed Supreme Court nominee Harriet Myers called George W. Bush "the most brilliant man I ever met." In her case, she probably felt that Bush was "brilliant" because he was trying to appoint her to the Supreme Court.
The other day, my boss gave me a very generous Christmas bonus. Until then, I never realized how brilliant he is.
That's how conservatives can be in favor of "states' rights" but against state efforts to provide universal health care or regulate the sale of firearms.
It's how they can be in favor of "states' rights" but think nothing of using the power of the federal government to install George W. Bush as President.
It's how they can say they favor "individual freedom" but argue for criminilzation of homosexuality, against same sex marriage and against reproductive freedom for women.
It's how a governor who advocated for secession from the United States can be a candidate for President of the United States.
Conservative positions on individual issues don't require a logical framework or consistency.
This man is a jerk and a joke. So is Boortz, who, I might add isn't a conservative and doesn't claim to be. Boortz is a hard-line libertarian. Always has been.
Probably would have argued the same thing back then. "Activist judges! Imposing their ideology!"