On Dec 22, 5:12*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Han" wrote in message

...

"Robert Green" wrote in
:

sorry for snipping relevant prior text
Those are the sort of things that Han and I worry about that don't
seem to bother you. *It's been alleged that more than one president
used the FBI to gather dirt on their political enemies, Presidents
from both parties. *Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.

The last statement is an obvious one, and sad to say rather relevant in
view of Gingrich' reported sttement that if elected he'd do as he saw fit,
and SCOTUS be damned (paraphrased!).

Yes, I read that and it's consistent with what he's said over the years.

http://www.freep.com/article/2011121...Gingrich-says-...

WASHINGTON - Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court
decisions that conflict with his powers as commander in chief, and he would
press for impeaching judges or abolishing certain courts if he disagreed
with their rulings . . . "I'm fed up with elitist judges" who seek to impose
their "radically un-American" views, Gingrich said Saturday during a
conference call with reporters.

An elitist politician with a $1M line of credit at Tiffany's and a doctorate
in history has some balls to be ****ed at judges who mostly try to follow
the Constitution that they were sworn to uphold. *I don't know how good a
history professor he was if he fails to understand the basic principles of
"checks and balances" written into the Constitution. *Maybe he thinks it's
about balancing his checkbook. *(-:

Those checks and balances include procedures for removing judges
that consistently come up with rulings that have no basis in the
law. BTW, do the credit lines or wealth of folks like John Kerrry,
Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton have enter into the equation? Or is
it just
Republicans where it matters?





I've pretty much concluded that Democrats and Republicans alike don't care
for judges who actively advocate positions they don't espouse. *But they're
just fine with activist judges that think like they do. *That's why we have
the nomination process for Federal judges, to at least ensure a mix.

All the activist judges I know are Democrat liberals. Can't think
of a single Republican one. Can you show us some? As an example
of activist judges, the NJ Supreme Court, chock full of liberals is
a classic example. Their decisions, totally unsupported by the
constitution, have wrecked the state. Examples:

They ruled that each municipality must provided it's "fair share"
of affordable housing. Where does it say that in the constitution?

They ruled two decades ago that children in areas with lower
incomes and property values were not getting the proper
education because those school districts had less funding.
Now, two decades later, the court is still directly involved in
deciding that funding every year. We are pouring 2x the money
into the low income school districts that we are into schools
in wealthier communities. Across the state, those of modest
means, retirees, etc are being driven from their homes by
the resulting increases in property taxes. And the kids in
those districts that are getting the 2X funding? They are
just as dumb as ever.

Those are the kinds of judges Newt is talking about.



At least Newt doesn't buy into the "Starve the Beast" philosophy put forth
by the never-elected to office, "Who the Fu& are You to Dictate National
Policy to Anyone?" Grover Norquist and realizes the government does a lot of
necessary things.

. . .In a 1984 interview with Mother Jones Magazine, Mr. Gingrich was
unapologetic. "I believe in a lean bureaucracy," he said, "but not no
bureaucracy." . . . "Gingrich talked a lot about the importance of
listening, but he was often not interested in discussing our ideas," one
member of the freshman class of 1994, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, now a senator,
later wrote in a book about his years in Washington, "Breach of Trust." .