"The Supreme Court on Tuesday morning appeared divided along party lines, with a conservative majority ready to hold that corporations cannot be held accountable in federal courts for international human rights violations.
Even before Newt Gingrich's remarks regarding the judiciary during the most recent GOP debate (we live-blogged it HERE), he had already provoked criticism over his distorted notions of the separation of powers. Notably, former George W. Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey called them, "dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off-the-wall and would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle."
As has always been the case with Newt, when faced with any intelligent criticism, he doubles down. In a conference call with the press yesterday, he vowed that, as President, he would simply ignore any Supreme Court ruling with which he disagrees.
Russel Berman notes:
"Gingrich’s position represents, in effect, a direct challenge to the interpretation of Marbury v. Madison, the seminal 1803 Supreme Court decision that established the principle of judicial review and cemented the high court as the ultimate arbiter of whether congressional or executive acts are constitutional."
This is classic Gingrich; throw bombs and grin as they go off around our political landscape. We should be used to it.
However, his appearance on today's Face The Nation program was worse than merely reasserting an anti-Constitutional position. When asked about the "practical" dilemmas inherent in his proposal that congressional subpoenas be issued to judges whenever he disagrees with them, he said, "sure," he'd have judges arrested and forcibly compelled to explain themselves... politically.
There is a great danger in the casual way the term "impeachment" has been thrown around over the last few years. What's more, to propose impeaching a Supreme Court Justice is and should be almost unheard of.
It's time to seriously pursue it now. Justice Antonin Scalia has so overstepped the bounds of propriety and into the realm of activist politics that he must be removed from the Court. He is a clear and present danger to the established separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.
The decision by Supreme Court JusticeAntonin Scaliato accept an invitation from Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), the founder of the House'sTea PartyCaucus, to speak to incoming House members about the Constitution is drawing fire from some who worry the court is injecting itself into partisan politics. The meeting "suggests an alliance between the conservative members of the court and the conservative members of Congress," said Jonathan Turley, a law professor atGeorge Washington University, who said Scalia had shown "exceedingly poor judgment."
"Poor judgement?" That's a little like saying of someone who has intentionally run over a dog that they "hit the brakes too late." Impeachment is more than justified.
