Gingrich, the anti-conservative. Por George Will.
When discussing his amazingness, Newt Gingrich sometimes exaggerates somewhat, as when, discussing Bosnia and Washington, D.C., street violence, he said, “People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Jan. 16, 1994]. What primarily stands between us and misrule, however, is the Constitution, buttressed by an independent judiciary.
But Gingrich’s hunger for distinction has surely been slaked by his full-throated attack on such a judiciary. He is the first presidential candidate to propose a thorough assault on the rule of law. That is the meaning of his vow to break courts to the saddle of politicians, particularly to members of Congress, who rarely even read the laws they pass.
Gingrich’s unsurprising descent into sinister radicalism — intimidation of courts — is redundant evidence that he is not merely the least conservative candidate, he is thoroughly anti-conservative. He disdains the central conservative virtue, prudence, and exemplifies progressivism’s defining attribute — impatience with impediments to the political branches’ wielding of untrammeled power. He exalts the will of the majority of the moment, at least as he, tribune of the vox populi, interprets it.
Atop the Republican ticket, Gingrich would guarantee Barack Obama’s reelection, would probably doom Republicans’ hopes of capturing the Senate and might cost them control of the House. If so, Gingrich would at last have achieved something — wreckage, but something — proportional to his swollen sense of himself.
Pedro Sette-Câmara
André Azevedo Alves
Carlos Guimarães Pinto
Helder Ferreira
Bruno Garschagen
João Luís Pinto
LA
Bruno Alves
Miguel Botelho Moniz
ruicarmo
Miguel Noronha
Elizabete Dias
António Costa Amaral (AA)
LT
Rui Oliveira
BZ
dos ∫antos
André Abrantes Amaral
planca12
rui a.
Rodrigo Adão da Fonseca
Adolfo Mesquita Nunes
Michael Seufert
Luciano
Carlos M. Fernandes
Maria João Marques
jtcb
Nuno Branco
elisabetejoaquim
filipeabrantes
Tomás Belchior
Bruno Gonçalves
Ricardo G. Francisco
Tiago Loureiro
Ricardo Campelo de Magalhães
Filipe Faria
Ricardo Arroja
A questão que Newt G. levanta não é atacar a, uma, Lei. “… assault on the rule of law.”
Alvitra, apenas, que os Juízes que proferem sentenças “insólitas” venham ao Legislativo explicar a sua interpretação da Lei. Em que basearam a sua decisão. Para evitar uma (perigosa) onda crescente da chamada “legislação de origem Judicial”. “Legislation from the bench”.
“Legislating from the bench is another way of describing when a court overreaches their Article III (…in the Constitution, Separation of Powers…) authority and creates law. The court’s job is to interpret the Constitution and apply law (either from Congress, the Constitution, or common law) to the facts of the case at hand”.
Discutível mas com algum mérito.
Comentário por JS — Dezembro 23, 2011 @ 01:00
Ainda mais claro no, World Street J.,
Gingrich Vs. Activism BY CURT LEVEY
‘Gingrich would arrest judges,” scream the headlines. You’d think he’d proposed some crazy, unconstitutional crackdown on federal judges. Instead, Newt Gingrich’s position paper, “Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution,” has a set of controversial but thoughtful proposals for reining in judicial activism.
These include calling judges before Congress to explain their decisions, impeaching judges or eliminating courts that consistently get the Constitution wrong, and limiting the applicability of Supreme Court decisions that distort the Constitution. They’ve been dismissed as violations of the Constitution’s separation of powers. The criticisms are overblown….
Comentário por JS — Dezembro 24, 2011 @ 12:35