You can add Newt Gingrich to the list of famous people who will not be receiving a Christmas card from me.
I was somewhat taken aback when during Friday's Fox News debate Newt went postal on the judiciary. Given that I am often critical of our judicial branch, it might come as a surprise to you that I vehemently disagree with him regarding the judiciary's final judgment on what is and is not constitutional. As president, he would refuse to recognize some Supreme Court rulings. He would haul some federal judges before Congress if they should rule in some fashion he (or someone) decided was outrageous. He would force their appearance before Congress via federal marshals if necessary.
Suddenly, we wouldn't be electing just a president. We would be electing someone who proclaimed at least some control over the judicial and legislative branches, as well as absolute control over the executive branch. He would take an oath to defend the Constitution but he would have his fingers crossed. He would only defend those portions he deemed worthy. If a wayward judge were to rule unreasonably, Chief Executive Gingrich would have him hauled before Congress.
None of the three branches of government is doing a praiseworthy job of protecting the rights granted to us by the Constitution. Of the three branches, however, the courts are doing the least bad job.
During the debate and elsewhere, the Newtster has given us some sense of what he considers outrageous. He seems really bothered about the Court ruling on prayer and the pledge of allegiance. He's unhappy with abortion rulings. He doesn't like Cooper v. Aaron, the ruling that forced integration of public schools in Arkansas (and everywhere else). He seems to be fretting in advance over gay rights rulings.
I suspect the Newtmeister would not be pleased of the Supremes ruled against Obamacare and President Obama simply decided to ignore them. I suspect Newtly would have been unhappy if Bill Clinton would have ignore the Supremes and handed the keys to the White House to Al Gore instead of George Bush.
It cuts both ways. If the President can choose which Supreme Court decisions he will enforce, and which he will ignore, then we can dispose of the Court. We will be at the mercy of whichever party controls the White House. The President will be unchecked and unbalanced by judges.
It's a pretty sad lot we have to choose from for President of these here United States. I'll offer my quick summary and then step down from my pedestal.
Gingrich -- the man who would be king
Obama -- a walking, talking credit card that we can no longer afford
Paul -- putting Amish practices at the forefront of our national security
Perry -- allowing innocents to be put to the needle
Bachmann -- an uncylopeadia