Gingrich: As a historian, I understand the courts better than lawyers. But he's a lousy historian.

[bleever]

In this past Thursday's GOP debate, Newt Gingrich, the great intellect and historian, chose to show that he skates circles around everyone else with this little flourish:

"Lincoln repudiates the Dred Scott decision in his first inaugural address in 1861 and says, no nine people can make law in this country. That would be the end of our freedom. So I would suggest to you, actually as a historian, I may understand this better than lawyers."

Indeed, Newt. You really would suggest that. However, it would be better if you actually knew what you were talking about while wagging that big head at us.

He was defending comments he had previously made advocating "impeaching judges or abolishing courts altogether", saying that "I would be prepared to take on the judiciary if, in fact, it did not restrict itself in what it was doing."

However, in making two points comparing himself to Lincoln, he gets two points wrong:

1. Lincoln didn't repudiate the Dred Scott decision in his First Inaugural Address. In fact, he explicitly states:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Further,

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law.

And 2. Lincoln did not, as Gingrich suggests, repudiate the power or the role of the Supreme Court. He discusses the importance of the balance of powers, saying:

A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism.

He specifically addressed the role of the Supreme Court with these words:

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice.

And while he acknowledges that law that is "irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court" would concentrate power in one single branch of the government, he is only acknowledging the role of the other branches in asserting their powers as well; in fact he continues:

Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

While it's no surprise that Gingrich could talk down to someone from the bottom of a well, it's good to remember that the more smugly he says something, the more it bears scrutiny.

And scrutiny is not Gingrich's friend.

[phasma ex machina]

1. Newt's ego's so big that world history seems but a haiku in comparison.

[bleever]

3. Newt's ego is so big he can fill stadiums

with it.

[coalition_unwilling]

5. And the whole of American history but a footnote. Actually,

European historians do tend to think of American history as 'current events'

JK!

[opihimoimoi]

2. This Newt Fella belongs in the (BULLY CATEGORY)....subdivision: Hubristic... dept: Antagonistic

The worst type to install anywhere.....these types SELFDESTRUCT... Koresh, Applegate, Jones,

Bagwahan, Hitler, etc are examples...

Look at the destruction he caused along bthev way....now he wants to up the ante??? I hope he

is stopped soon.... a cancer he is...

[rug]

4. He'll understand it better as a defendant.

[elleng]

6. Good one!

'Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.'

[bleever]

7. The entire address repudiates the kind of tendencies that Gingrich's remarks typify.

What a knucklehead.

[elleng]

8. Of course.

[housewolf]

9. He's so puffed-up, full of himself

He'll have to explode one of these days


And it won't be a pretty thing to either see or clean up after

[Burma Jones]

10. He's not a Historian......but he plays one on TeeVee

[treestar]

11. Newtie only thinks he is the smartest guy in the room.

[bleever]

12. This is a guy who said his first wife wasn't young enough or pretty enough to be the wife

of a president.

[treestar]

13. My eyes!!!!!!!!

Bad bleever!

"young enough?"

How young does he think a FLOTUS should be? When the job of POTUS will tend to go to those with some experience in the world?

Where was Newt when Bush I was President? Reagan?