What If Ron Paul Wins Iowa? What Then?

[tech2101]

I find the term "activist judge" funny. It is only used when a judge rules in deference to the viewpoint of the one labeling he/she an activist.

These candidates who say they would drag judges from the bench to answer for their rulings are simply pandering to the ignorant sector of the electorate.

 

[Veritas]

Perry is starting to look like he will be able to make a bit of a showing before he gets closed down for his crazy ideas. This is going to be a fun primary season to watch.

He just hit another speed bump.

From the Dallas Morning News:

Perry claimed retirement to collect extra state benefits on top of salary

AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry claimed his retirement benefit from the state last January and has padded his salary with an additional $92,000 in taxpayer funds, financial disclosures filed in the presidential race show.
Under state law, Perry, 61, is eligible for retirement through his 25 years in public office coupled with his five years of military service. The supplemental pay boosted his state-paid gross income to $242,000 annually.
He was able to retire and continue in office through a quirk in state law provided for statewide elected officials. And while the double-dip benefit is available for other state employees, Perry has signed laws as governor that make it more difficult for others, especially teachers, to take advantage.​

Hypocrite.

 

[tech2101]

Executive Orders are ruling by decree and they are wrong no mater which wing on the Bird of Prey called the Political Parasite Class uses them. Equally wrong is the use of subpoena power because a judge rules in a manner to which someone objects for political reasons.

""As the foregoing discussion suggests, there are many legitimate uses of presidential directives. The following functions of the President expressly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution are among the more important under which the President may issue at least some directives in the exercise of his constitutional and statutorily delegated powers:

Commander in Chief.15 The President's power as Commander in Chief is limited by other constitutional powers granted to Congress, such as the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, make rules (i.e., laws) for the regulation of the armed forces, and provide for calling forth the militia of the several states. However, the President's power as military commander is still very broad with respect to the armed forces at his disposal, including some situations in which Congress has not acted to declare war.
Head of State.16 The President is solely responsible for carrying out foreign policy, which includes the sole power to recognize foreign governments, receive foreign ambassadors, and negotiate treaties. Congress may enact laws affecting foreign policy, and two-thirds of the Senate must ratify any treaty before it becomes binding law, but Congress must still leave the execution of foreign policy and diplomatic relations to the President.
Chief Law Enforcement Officer. The President has the sole constitutional obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed,"17 and this grants him broad discretion over federal law enforcement decisions. He has not only the power, but also the responsibility to see that the Constitution and laws are interpreted correctly.18 In addition, the President has absolute prosecutorial discretion in declining to bring criminal indictments. As in the exercise of any other constitutional power, one may argue that a particular President is "abusing his discretion," but even in such a case, he cannot be compelled to prosecute any criminal charges.
Head of the Executive Branch. The Framers debated and rejected the creation of a plural executive. They selected a "unitary executive" and determined that he alone would be vested with "[t]he executive power" of Article II. After much debate, the Framers also determined that the President would nominate and appoint (with the Senate's consent in some cases) all officers in the executive branch. With very few exceptions, all appointed officials who work in the executive branch serve at the will and pleasure of the President, even if Congress has specified a term of years for a particular office.19 All of this was designed to ensure the President's control over officials in the executive branch20 and to promote "energy in the executive."21
When the President is lawfully exercising one of these functions,22 the scope of his power to issue written directives is exceedingly broad. In short, he may issue or execute whatever written directives, orders, guidelines (such as prosecutorial guidelines or nondiscriminatory enforcement policies), communiqués, dispatches, or other instructions he deems appropriate.

The President also may issue directives in the exercise of his statutorily delegated authority, unless Congress has specified in law that the statutory power may be exercised only in a particular way. A few examples of Congress's conditional grant of statutory authority are mentioned herein, but as previously explained, there are limits to how far Congress can go in an attempt to micromanage even the President's statutorily delegated authority.23 For example, Congress can grant the President (or his Attorney General) the authority to deport certain illegal aliens, but it cannot attempt to retain a veto over the final decision as it tried to do in the Immigration and Nationality Act.24

In sum, a President has broad discretion to use written directives when he is lawfully exercising one of his constitutional or statutorily delegated powers. Any broad power or discretion can be abused, but it would be wrong to confuse such potential or real abuse with the many legitimate uses.""

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/02/the-use-and-abuse-of-executive-orders-and-other-presidential-directives

 

[tech2101]

He just hit another speed bump.

From the Dallas Morning News:

Perry claimed retirement to collect extra state benefits on top of salary

AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry claimed his retirement benefit from the state last January and has padded his salary with an additional $92,000 in taxpayer funds, financial disclosures filed in the presidential race show.
Under state law, Perry, 61, is eligible for retirement through his 25 years in public office coupled with his five years of military service. The supplemental pay boosted his state-paid gross income to $242,000 annually.
He was able to retire and continue in office through a quirk in state law provided for statewide elected officials. And while the double-dip benefit is available for other state employees, Perry has signed laws as governor that make it more difficult for others, especially teachers, to take advantage.​

Hypocrite.

Need to post that over in the "elect me Rick Perry" thread so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle.

 

[delldude]

I find the term "activist judge" funny. It is only used when a judge rules in deference to the viewpoint of the one labeling he/she an activist.

These candidates who say they would drag judges from the bench to answer for their rulings are simply pandering to the ignorant sector of the electorate.

Legislating from the bench suit you better?


EO's......what's your point? His object is to circumvent the Constitution.

Theodore Roosevelt Total 1,081

Woodrow Wilson Total 1,803

Calvin Coolidge Total 1,203

And last but now least, that most revered of all FDR:

Franklin D. Roosevelt Total 3,522

 

[Ms Tree]

I find the term "activist judge" funny. It is only used when a judge rules in deference to the viewpoint of the one labeling he/she an activist.

These candidates who say they would drag judges from the bench to answer for their rulings are simply pandering to the ignorant sector of the electorate.

Exactly. Holding the judiciary prisoner to the legislative branch is not how the COTUS was set up and would be extremely detrimental to the legal system. Gingrich, for being a history scholar seems to have little understanding of the ramifications that could occur with his desired policies.

 

[delldude]

Exactly. Holding the judiciary prisoner to the legislative branch is not how the COTUS was set up and would be extremely detrimental to the legal system. Gingrich, for being a history scholar seems to have little understanding of the ramifications that could occur with his desired policies.

At the moment the legislative process has been co-opted by the Judicial. Judicial is to interpret the meaning of the law and not rewrite and institute it. Judges who legislate from the bench should be impeached.

 

[777 fixer]

I find the term "activist judge" funny. It is only used when a judge rules in deference to the viewpoint of the one labeling he/she an activist.

These candidates who say they would drag judges from the bench to answer for their rulings are simply pandering to the ignorant sector of the electorate.

I've often thought the same thing. When a judge makes a ruling certain people don't like that judge is an activist judge legislating from the bench. If a judge makes a ruling that those very same people like then that judge is just following the Constitution like the founding fathers intended.

 

[tech2101]

Judges who legislate from the bench should be impeached.

Judges do not have the power to Legislate.

If you don't like the rulings, lobby your congress and have a law enacted/changed.

Or, you can try the impeachment process. I did not agree with the citizens united case but I am not calling any of the judges "activist judges" or saying that they are legislating from the bench. It just makes me more determined to elect the proper person(s) to appoint and confirm those judges. It is how our system works. Although it is ugly at times, I still think it is the best system in the modern world.

I had a great debate in one of my classes about the same sex marriage case in Iowa heard by the Iowa Supreme Court. After studying the case, the seven judges ruled (unanimously) exactly how they should have given the law and the facts presented. Our Professor also agreed (and he is conservative). However, the electorate decided that they knew better and just tossed three of them out.

They followed the law (the Iowa Constitution), not their personal beliefs...and look what happened.

Constitutional Infirmity. In concluding the marriage statute is constitutionally infirm, the court stated:
We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination.
We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2 denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law promised by the Iowa Constitution.

Case overview

 

[delldude]

Judges do not have the power to Legislate.

If you don't like the rulings, lobby your congress and have a law enacted/changed.

Or, you can try the impeachment process. I did not agree with the citizens united case but I am not calling any of the judges "activist judges" or saying that they are legislating from the bench. It just makes me more determined to elect the proper person(s) to appoint and confirm those judges. It is how our system works. Although it is ugly at times, I still think it is the best system in the modern world.

I had a great debate in one of my classes about the same sex marriage case in Iowa heard by the Iowa Supreme Court. After studying the case, the judges ruled exactly how they should have given the law and the facts presented. Our Professor also agreed (and he is conservative). However, the electorate decided that they knew better and just tossed three of them out.

They followed the law, not their personal beliefs...and look what happened.


Case overview

Judges may not have the power to legislate but you can't sit there and tell me they've never interpreted and rewrote existing laws?

 

[Ms Tree]

And that is exactly what Gingrich is talking about. He wants judges to be held accountable to the popular belief, not the law and the COTUS. That is a very dangerous path. I have never been a huge fan of life time appointments but I am glad they have it. This takes part of the political aspect out of the legal system which is as it should be. Gingrich and Perry are very dangerous in so far as their views on the legal system are concerned. Gingrich for as smart as he is, seems to be quite ignorant. I think it will be his down fall. This is why he got shuffled out of Congress and why I hope he will be shuffled out of the running for President.

 

[tech2101]

Judges may not have the power to legislate but you can't sit there and tell me they've never interpreted and rewrote existing laws?

Interpreting laws is there job. Re-write laws, no. Strike them down as unconstitutional, or uphold them as constitutional, yes.

 

[delldude]

Interpreting laws is there job. Re-write laws, no. Strike them down as unconstitutional, or uphold them as constitutional, yes.

And if they venture from those bounds, impeachment should be the norm.

 

[delldude]

And that is exactly what Gingrich is talking about. He wants judges to be held accountable to the popular belief, not the law and the COTUS. That is a very dangerous path. I have never been a huge fan of life time appointments but I am glad they have it. This takes part of the political aspect out of the legal system which is as it should be. Gingrich and Perry are very dangerous in so far as their views on the legal system are concerned. Gingrich for as smart as he is, seems to be quite ignorant. I think it will be his down fall. This is why he got shuffled out of Congress and why I hope he will be shuffled out of the running for President.

Lifetime appointments have a direct political impact and do for a very long time.

 

[delldude]

And that is exactly what Gingrich is talking about. He wants judges to be held accountable to the popular belief, not the law and the COTUS. That is a very dangerous path. I have never been a huge fan of life time appointments but I am glad they have it. This takes part of the political aspect out of the legal system which is as it should be. Gingrich and Perry are very dangerous in so far as their views on the legal system are concerned. Gingrich for as smart as he is, seems to be quite ignorant. I think it will be his down fall. This is why he got shuffled out of Congress and why I hope he will be shuffled out of the running for President.

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich came out swinging Saturday against the nation's legal system, pledging if elected to defy Supreme Court rulings with which he disagrees and declaring that a 200-year-old principle of American government, judicial review to ensure that the political branches obey the Constitution, had been "grossly overstated."

Courts "are forcing us into a constitutional crisis because of their arrogant overreach," Mr. Gingrich told reporters in a Saturday conference call. He repeatedly blasted federal judges for imposing "elitist opinion" on the rest of the country.

If a President Gingrich were to follow through with his plans, he would almost certainly provoke a constitutional conflict with the head of the federal judiciary—Chief Justice John Roberts, who, as it happens, Mr. Gingrich has cited as one of his favorite justices. It already has divided him from leaders of the conservative legal movement, including former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who told Fox News that some of Mr. Gingrich's ideas are "dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off-the-wall and would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle."

Newt for Supreme Commander