Best: It's not that "nobody bothered to put term limits on the Justices" as Balmung stated.
The idea is that the Justices aren't subject to being removed and replaced at will by the President or the Congress (although, as Fighteer pointed out, the Congress can impeach and remove from office (two different things, by the way) both the President and the Justices. This is so that the President can't rearrange the Court to suit himself whenever he wants to, or if he simply doesn't like they way they've been going in their rulings.
edited 19th Jan '12 9:29:19 AM by Madrugada
Well, this is fucking ridiculous. I may not like what SCOTUS does, but the president just outright ignoring them is absolute shit. There's ways to get SCOTUS to change their rulings at a later date, but for a supposed constitutionalist to defy the Supreme Court that way just tells me how skewed the Republican party and agenda are.
See, this is part of why I'm voting Obama. He doesn't just defy the other branches of government on a petty whim. (Granted, I think he could stand to defy the Congress more on principles, but even then he wouldn't do it with the petty motivation that Gingrich displays.)
However, being a democracy is not enough. Illiberal democracies still suck. The ideal is the liberal democracy, in which you have both democracy and guaranteed basic rights for everybody - and those basic rights are protected even against the majority. But that only works if you have a body that can in fact protect the law and rights against the majority - the court system, which hence should be entirely seperate from the democratic process (really, I find the US practice of elected state judges to be rather horrible...)
Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 FanficWell the courts have this problem in most countries. If the legislative branch just flat ignored the court and continued to run the bureaucracy in a way that contradicted a major ruling, what can a court do? The paycheques of everyone comes from the legislative branch. The executive branch has a lot of influence over the legislative branch. The judiciary has nothing.
@Best Of:
honestly for judges, as with a lot of things in the US, they were deliberately designed to slow down the government. By giving judges "lifetime" (or rather unlimited") appointments, they are the most stable political branch, and are designed to trip other branches of government up if they're moving too fast.
Because Congress, the elected officials of the U.S., can actually change said document by proposing an amendment that overturns the Court's decision and letting the state legislatures ratify it into the Constitution. In fact, this particular scenario has happened four times in U.S. History. For example, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments overturned the Dred Scott decision.
edited 19th Jan '12 1:19:29 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyAmerica is not a pure democracy. Nothing is.
The Supreme Court is the one institution that is supposed to favor the value of truth of law (i.e. Constitution) over the demands of the majority, defending the document's integrity. It's supposed to show a sense of restraint. The Congress is supposed to be the activist force, passing laws to suit needs.
A candidate blatantly stating that he would arbitrarily ignore the Court is a bad move. That's basically saying that because he would be commander-in-chief he has actualized power (not law-based) and thus would ignore the legal side of things.
Now using Trivialis handle.The responses I got are what I expected to be the case; it's nice to know I either guessed or remembered (see, I don't remember reading about this but it's something that I probably would've looked up at some point) right.
This is touching the 2012 elections thread, but equally relevant to this one: I've heard speculation that Gingrich is in this election without a desire to win at all.
Apparently, in the US, a Presidential candidate that has been nominated and lost before is never nominated again by the party to be their Presidential candidate. Since most Presidents serve 2 terms, it's assumed by the strongest politicians of the other party that they'd lose if they ran; so most people don't even try. This opens the field for weaker candidates (like Cain and Bachmann) as well as potentially less serious ones (like Gingrich.)
Someone said (or I read somewhere) that Gingrich has had a book out every time he's been on the ballot for Republican Presidential nomination. It is speculated that he wants to lose just to get publicity for his book. (I don't know if he has a book out now, but I bet he soon will, whether this speculation is otherwise true or not.)
Could this be the truth? (I'm bringing this up here because the statement quoted in the OP sounds rather like something you'd think up specifically to get media attention and to lose voters.)
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Gingrich has been lampooned repeatedly during this primary for selling his books during campaign events. It would not surprise me in the least if one of his main goals is simply to get publicity for himself. That would make him a troll on a massive scale — quite amusing, really.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Nixon lost to JFK(1960), and was renominated to face Lyndon Johnson(1968)... It happens, but rarely.
As to the topic: The sentiment itself, everyone has it regarding at least one issue... Even so, Gingrich is an idiot for saying it aloud...
Not to derail, but imagine the firestorm if Obama were to come out in public and declare that the U.S. public debt is a myth. He'd get reamed out by all sides despite the fact that what he says is absolutely true, but requires a fairly lengthy economics lesson to understand.
That's Gingrich's problem, and in a more general sense, the entire Right's. They don't have any kind of censorship on their proclamations.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Even prior to that, Grover Cleveland also lost the election between his two non-consecutive terms. So yeah, it does happen.
edited 19th Jan '12 2:49:29 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyAnd as I remember, Adlai Stevenson ran several elections in a row without winning.
Not to mention that the parties, at least in the sense of the organization itself, don't really decide who they nominate. Instead we have the (very poorly designed) primary system
.
Well, OK, but I suppose it could still be argued that the general trend is that candidates who have lost previous Presidential elections are disfavoured in future ones; and because the incumbent wins very often, there's an incentive on strong candidates to wait out an election cycle if the incumbent can run.
edited 19th Jan '12 4:32:56 PM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Back on topic, Andrew Jackson isn't the only instance of ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling. What about the Dred Scott case? It's quite possibly the worst SCOTUS rulings ever, and no one took it seriously. The case was about whether Dred Scott was free or a slave. The court's ruling was basically "Dred Scott is a slave, and non-citizens can't sue in court, and slavery can't be prohibited in federal territories, and the Missouri Compromise was invalid, and blacks can never become citizens. It all became moot when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were passed, but it's not like Congress or northern states abided by the ruling in the intervening period.
The only possible check and balance on the judicial branch is impeachment, which has never been used. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, but they're not infallible or unbiased. The President is supposed to uphold the Constitution. Ignoring or loopholing around decisions on occasion is done already by President, Congress, and states at various times, and it doesn't destroy the checks and balances.
We're not just men of science, we're men of TROPE!Here's the fact of the situation: The Supreme Court has exactly as much power over the President, right now, as the President chooses to allow them.
The only real check on the President is impeachment, followed by conviction by (drumroll) two-thirds of the Senate. Right now, you can't get two-thirds of the Senate to agree on pizza toppings, let alone the impeachment of a hardass Republican President who'll kick those liberals where they live. So if Gingrich were elected (ha) on a platform of "fuck the Supreme Court, and fuck Congress too," nobody could do anything about it so long as 34 Republican Senators were ready to raise their fists for the "true meaning of the Constitution."
The main difference between Jackson and now is that Jackson had a lot more leeway to simply order the military to deal with dissent than Presidents do today.
You know, in a purely technical sense, I think Gingrich would actually be legally able to do this...
The idea of constitutional review of laws in the US is not, to my knowledge, actually in the Constitution. It was created by the Supreme Court in the time immediately after the Constitution was ratified, in the case Marbury vs. Madison.
So, theoretically, there is no constitutional requirement of either Congress or the President to give a fuck when the Supreme Court says something is constitutional/unconstitutional/whatever.
Of course, in reality, the political shitstorm would probably create proverbial earthquakes across the damn planet, but all this really means is that we need to formally spell out that the Supreme Court possesses the power of judicial review in the Constitution. He's essentially abusing a loophole, unless I'm remembering my constitutional history incorrectly...
edited 19th Jan '12 7:33:12 PM by Flyboy
"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

Well, basically, nobody stated or passed any term limits or anything of the sort to the SCOTUS and the Constitution only provided that thre shall be a Supreme Court and left it at that. Part of why there's no term limits is because there are no term limits, and part is because, well, who in power doesn't want to put "the craziest motherfucker they can sneak past Congress" on the highest court in the land for life?