HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Chemerinsky on Newt: Tod...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:07 PM

Chemerinsky on Newt: Today's LA Times

December 20, 2011
The attack on the federal judiciary by Republican candidates for president has reached a new low and should be denounced by liberals and conservatives alike. In November, Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced that if elected president, his "appointees to the federal bench will not receive a lifetime appointment."Now Newt Gingrich has pledged that if he were elected he would defy Supreme Court rulings with which he disagreed and that judicial review to ensure that the government complies with the Constitution has been "grossly overstated."

In Thursday's debate in Iowa and in a media conference call on Saturday, Gingrich declared that courts are forcing us into a constitutional crisis because of their "arrogant overreach." He repeatedly blasted federal judges for imposing "elitist opinions" on the rest of the country. He has called for impeaching judges, abolishing judgeships and even eliminating courts whose rulings he dislikes.

~snip~

For example, in recent years, the high court has handed George W. Bush the presidency, greatly expanded the rights of gun owners under the 2nd Amendment, limited abortion rights and found in favor of corporations spending unlimited amounts of money in election campaigns. And most of the federal district court and court of appeals judges today were appointed by Republican presidents.

But there is a difference to this year's political rhetoric about the courts: It is more mean-spirited and it shows a stunning ignorance of the Constitution and American history.

Gingrich, for example, has called federal judges "anti-American" and "grotesquely dictatorial." And both Gingrich and Rick Santorum have talked about abolishing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Santorum said that he would "sign a bill tomorrow to eliminate the 9th Circuit," adding, "That court is rogue. It's a pox on the western part of our country." I don't recall prominent candidates for presidential nominations Democratic or Republican ever talking in such tones.

More at the link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chemerinsky-fedjudges-20111220,0,4776130.story

11 replies, 1514 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 11 replies Author Time Post
Reply Chemerinsky on Newt: Today's LA Times (Original post)
CaliforniaPeggy Dec 2011 OP
suffragette Dec 2011 #1
gratuitous Dec 2011 #2
Laelth Dec 2011 #4
11 Bravo Dec 2011 #9
snagglepuss Dec 2011 #11
Laelth Dec 2011 #3
WCGreen Dec 2011 #5
CaliforniaPeggy Dec 2011 #7
hifiguy Dec 2011 #6
CaliforniaPeggy Dec 2011 #8
hifiguy Dec 2011 #10

Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:26 PM

1. Thanks for this post

Very good article, well worth the full read.

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:44 PM

2. Get this and get it good

The Republicans not only hate government, they hate the Constitution and by extension the United States. The country they dream of has very little in common with the country established and described by the Constitution. When they swear their public official's oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, they are lying. Sadly, a number of Democrats have been sucked into this line of subversive and treasonous thought: It is NOT the job of the President, Congress or the Supreme Court to "protect America." They are sworn to protect the Constitution. Without the Constitution, there is no United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:46 PM

4. +1 Well said. n/t

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:48 PM

9. Nicely put! And abso-fucking-lutely true!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:39 PM

11. This should be a permanent fixture on DU's home page.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:45 PM

3. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:02 PM

5. So I guess that means we are not a nation of laws any more...

It seems the way the Bush Administration ran rough shot over the law when they were in charge, well it's like the natural extension...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WCGreen (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:21 PM

7. Unfortunately, I think you may be right...

I hope we can get our nation of laws back.

We need really good, smart, tenacious people to do that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:21 PM

6. Chemerinsky is a VERY smart guy

Met him back in '85 when I went to USC during the process of deciding where to go to law school and we chatted for a couple of hours. I shoulda gone to USC - they offered me a three year free ride and the weather would have been a lot nicer than in Cambridge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:40 PM

8. Talking to him must have been amazing.

I always read what he has to say...

You should have stayed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:26 PM

10. He was incredibly down to earth - but he was

just a young prof those 26+ years ago - but anyone could tell even then that this guy was going places and was someone with a bright future ahead of him. He all but offered me a position as his research assistant if I'd gone to USC. I in fact committed to go there, but a couple of my classmates at the University of Minnesota, who had also been admitted to Harvard, talked me into going to HLS as well.

So I got to take my advanced Constitutional Law from Chemerinsky's mentor, Laurence Tribe, who was one of the best teachers I have ever had and an incredibly nice guy to boot. Once Larry took myself and three other students out to one of his favorite restaurants in Cambridge, recommended some of the pricier items on the menu and picked up the considerable tab on his Harvard business expense credit card. I got an A-minus from him, too.

I was on top of the world in those days, back in 1985. Applied to ten law schools and got into all but one - my first choce, which was Yale. Got accepted at Columbia, Cornell, Penn, USC, UCLA, and a few others, and wound up at Harvard. I shoulda gone to UCLA or USC.... Oh well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread