Monday, December 19, 2011

Newt Is Right About the Federal Courts

Newt Is Right About the Federal Courts

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


In typical “Newt fashion,” Gingrich has gone and tossed a bomb! A big bomb! He told the truth! How utterly horrible!

Frankly, I was beginning to worry. The Newt I know, from way back, did not hesitate to blurt out stunning statements of fact in mixed company… I mean, of course, a company made up of democrats and the Mainstream Media, but I repeat myself.

At least NOW I can relax. The old Newt is still here.

The instant I heard that Gingrich had advocated the abolishment of some federal courts, I belly-laughed. The game was ON! Our liberal/socialist media, I reasoned, would go absolutely nuts. There would be a rabid frenzy within their ranks as they rushed to their computers and studios to get this FLASH traffic onto the air. The world must be warned! There is a conservative madman, who openly speaks the truth, on the loose and America must be warned. Nay, America must be SAVED from this shocking, shocking, attack on the very engine of the liberal, progressive, socialist Movement in America. We’ve taken to referring to it as: the “Federal Judicial Legislature.” It is an unelected legislature handing down laws from the bench and forcing Americans to obey those laws on pain of punishment.

Newt has just shaken the Liberal/Progressive/Socialist movement in America to its very core.

Back in October of 2009, I wrote a commentary concerning the very same subject. It was entitled: “Abolition of the Ninth Circuit Court? In the event you may wish to read it, you will find it (HERE).

In the piece from 2010, I noted the following: “the Constitution grants Congress power to create and abolish federal courts, although the United States Supreme Court is the only court that cannot be abolished. Congress also has the authority to determine the number of judges in the federal judiciary system.” (SOURCE)

I also noted that earlier 2010, Newt Gingrich had called for the complete abolition of the Ninth Circuit Court. Gingrich was speaking to the annual gathering of the Conservative Political Action Conference at the time.

Referring to an action by President Thomas Jefferson, Gingrich said: the “judicial reform act of 1802 abolished 18 out of 35 federal judges, over half…I am more cautious than Jefferson. I would only abolish the Ninth Circuit Court.” (SOURCE)

I went on to point out that back in November of 2009, Gingrich is reported to have said: “It is constitutionally permissible, for the legislature and the president to say to a court, you are intolerable, and you no longer exist. And we need that debate because I am tired of secular fanatics trying to redesign America in their image.” (SOURCE)

Allow me to use the same example I used in that commentary back in 2010 to demonstrate why conservatives hold the “Federal Judicial Legislature” in such disdain.

I noted that: On Tuesday, October 27th, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that Arizona couldn’t require proof of citizenship in the United States when registering to vote.

“A three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday struck down a portion of an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. The court held that the law, Proposition 200, was inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), which was passed with the intent of increasing voter registration and removing barriers to registration imposed by the states. The NVRA requires voters to attest to the validity of the information on their registration form, including their citizenship, but does not require them to provide additional proof of citizenship. Proposition 200 went beyond the federal statute, requiring applicants to show proof of citizenship before registering to vote.” (SOURCE)

In plain language that ruling means that non-citizens will be allowed to register to vote, oh, say, in the 2012 Presidential Election – not just in Arizona -- but in all fifty states! One does not have to ruminate for very long to understand which political party will benefit from such a ruling, right?

Look. Newt may be wrong about some things, even a LOT of things. But he’s right about this.

J. D. Longstreet

5 comments: