Judging Newt

Newt Gingrich has had the temerity to assert that rogue courts should be held to account, and the punditry is apoplectic. Once again the sturm und drang surrounding Newt seems to be only loosly connected with anything he's actually said or done. I just finished watching Greta Van Susteren interview a judge (that just happens to have a new book out) about Newt's "assault on the judiciary". Excuse me? An assault on rogue courts is an attack on the third branch of government? It's always nice when the host and the guest both agree on completely wrong characterizations of a third person's positions. It's even better when that third person isn't around to set the record straight.  I guess that if Obama declares himself King and congress stands up to him, that will be an attack on the Presidency.  That's the kind of critical analysis we're getting from the professionals.

There are two basic things that I've had the 'pleasure' to observe Fox News handle fairly poorly in the last two days; first on the O'Reilly Factor last night, and again on On the Record tonight.  In these instances a guest of Bill or Greta would make a fairly gross mischaracterization about Newt's proposals and the host would just nod and go on. Is there a referee in this game?  Anyway, on to those two basic things.

The first item is the assertion by the pundits that it is preposterous for a President to think he can just drag a Judge before congress if they hand down a ruling that the President doesn't like. They use words like 'tyranical' and 'imperious' and act like Newt is trying to make himself into a king. The only problem with this whole line of discussion is that Newt is talking about a constitutional process driven by Congress, not the President. The issue that Newt is drawing attention to is not problems with specific rulings in specific cases. The problem is Judges that assault American culture in a belligerent manner not related to established law. The Judge in Texas threatening a school Superintendent with Jail time if he uses religious terms in a school function is a perfect example of the type of problem Newt is talking about.  Using this example is not a call for the US congress to meddle in issues involving Judges beyond federal jurisdiction. It is just an example.

The second item that these geniuses zero in on is that there is already a process in place to deal with bad rulings. They really come out strongly on this as if it is a really important point.  Hmmm, like it's a really important point that everybody doesn't already know. Do they seriously think that Newt doesn't know that? There is a pretty simple rule of thumb that I like to follow, and it goes something like this; If what you think you heard is completely irrational, then you might want to pause for a moment and seek a little clarification. It is true that we have an appeals process that can correct a bad ruling by a rogue Judge. Bad rulings are not the issue that Newt is raising.  The issue that Newt is raising is bad Judges. Appeals courts don't do anything to correct problems with bad Judges. An appeals process is completely irrelevant in dealing with rogue Judges that are out of control or completely out of touch with American constitutional and judicial tradition.

When Judges engage in this type of behavior it is appropriate to hold them accountable.  Asking a Judge to give an accounting before congress prior to proceeding with impeachment is not an unreasonable thing to do. At the heart of the frustration that Newt is expressing is the idea that the court is somehow superior to the other two branches. Activist Judges are a serious problem that conservatives have been discussing for quite some time. Rather than react with shock and alarm that a Presidential candidate has had the gall to talk about the issue, we would be better off to think critically about his recommendations and find some areas of general agreement.