Latest Breaking News

Sgent

(5,858 posts)

122. Yes and no

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 04:23 AM

Jan 2012

The supreme court certainly has the right to rule on whether the executive is abiding by the law, treaties, and constitution. The enforcement though is a political question -- although IMHO contempt of the court by the executive would be good grounds for impeachment.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

156 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Newt Gingrich: I would ignore supreme court as president [View all] alp227 Jan 2012 OP

Sounds like Nixon, who believed that "if the president does it, it isn't illegal." I guess these tblue37 Jan 2012 #1

Unfortunately, Bush proved that statement to be true, and Obama has followed up on that practice. nt harmonicon Jan 2012 #30

How has Obama attacked the US? boppers Jan 2012 #34

Not treason, but "if the president does it, then it's not illegal." harmonicon Jan 2012 #40

Come HARD or go home Veracious Jan 2012 #64

What?!?! Have you had your head buried in the sand?! harmonicon Jan 2012 #75

Ok, here are a few links. harmonicon Jan 2012 #78

We should have put Bin Laudin on trial? We are at war. Maraya1969 Jan 2012 #150

Oh, how civil of you! You're so nice. harmonicon Jan 2012 #152

Here Charlemagne Jan 2012 #80

Here's how Obama has attacked the US... MrBlueSky Jan 2012 #81

It's still going on in my backyard bathroommonkey76 Jan 2012 #108

got us OUT of Iraq, is working on getting us OUT of Afghanistan, against torture & waterboarding wordpix Jan 2012 #131

Please give details. n/t MaineDem Jan 2012 #38

See above. nt. harmonicon Jan 2012 #41

Opinion pieces don't count Maraya1969 Jan 2012 #151

You dispute the facts contained in the links I provided? harmonicon Jan 2012 #153

Well, that didn't take long. tabasco Jan 2012 #101

I'm an idiot for knowing the facts? harmonicon Jan 2012 #102

Facts? If Glenn Greenwald says the President is violating the Constitution tabasco Jan 2012 #109

There's nothing at all complicated about it. harmonicon Jan 2012 #110

Battlefield deaths are not murder. boppers Jan 2012 #117

There was no battlefield involved. harmonicon Jan 2012 #119

Perhaps you are not familiar with our current battlefields: boppers Jan 2012 #120

I know that you know you're wrong. harmonicon Jan 2012 #128

It's not a world I like living in. boppers Jan 2012 #143

Gingrich, just week: "Obama = Imperial Presidency" OneAngryDemocrat Jan 2012 #95

no nanabugg Jan 2012 #132

that was from the 1977 David Frost interview alp227 Jan 2012 #147

isn't this called TREASON? Tumbulu Jan 2012 #2

Yes Scairp Jan 2012 #7

Hmmm no, read what is treason in the US nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #20

Treason in the US SemperEadem Jan 2012 #26

Words have meanings nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #68

he justsqualified himself foer that new detainee program. elehhhhna Jan 2012 #43

No, it's not treason Scootaloo Jan 2012 #77

No - go read the Constitution. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #84

That's the way, Newtie! Antagonize the people who will preside over your impeachment!. . . Journeyman Jan 2012 #3

duRec nt Aida F Jan 2012 #4

golly gee, Newt is a modern day Andrew Jackson! provis99 Jan 2012 #5

+ Brazillion nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #21

Jackson was my first thought too. no_hypocrisy Jan 2012 #32

no worries Angry Dragon Jan 2012 #6

He's too sexy for his oath. bleever Jan 2012 #8

Hahaha! Thanks, I needed the levity. The Wielding Truth Jan 2012 #91

Well, he is no different than Bush, Dan Jan 2012 #9

What a narcissistic, megalomaniacal..... DeSwiss Jan 2012 #10

OMG Scairp Jan 2012 #11

cannot attest to the # of years KT2000 Jan 2012 #14

That was Perry dear Scairp Jan 2012 #17

Ooops! - dear n/t KT2000 Jan 2012 #76

And Republicans claim to have some magical understanding of the Constitution. n/t Beartracks Jan 2012 #12

"Waah! Laws are too cumbersome!" - Newt Gingrich, 2012 Beartracks Jan 2012 #13

You might try ignoring the Supremes, Newt, but can you ignore your ex-wife? truthisfreedom Jan 2012 #15

He won't be the nominee no matter what Scairp Jan 2012 #18

Between Marianne doing an interview, and Mittsy's Cayman Islands cash, this is starting to get fun. MADem Jan 2012 #23

Who cares about specific sex acts? boppers Jan 2012 #35

It was the where, mostly--the Speaker's office suite....and the what, to some extent, MADem Jan 2012 #36

I was thinking, too, that maybe he had to hang from the rafters, or dmr Jan 2012 #70

I heard rumors about the desk, the conference table, and the xerox machine! MADem Jan 2012 #146

Newtzi obviously does geardaddy Jan 2012 #59

A furry! colorado_ufo Jan 2012 #94

Ooh, a "pander bear"... boppers Jan 2012 #118

no, that's Neut-wit SemperEadem Jan 2012 #28

Interesting MFrohike Jan 2012 #16

No, sorry, the executive is NEVER justified in ingnoring the court. That is why the court is there dballance Jan 2012 #22

Ok MFrohike Jan 2012 #88

Yes and no Sgent Jan 2012 #122

This isn't dodgeball MFrohike Jan 2012 #124

A few examples Sgent Jan 2012 #126

And you're missing the point MFrohike Jan 2012 #138

I thought carter was honoring a treaty that we had with panama? newspeak Jan 2012 #134

He was MFrohike Jan 2012 #140

You are mistaken. Vattel Jan 2012 #27

No I'm not MFrohike Jan 2012 #89

You are mistaken again. Vattel Jan 2012 #142

Am I? MFrohike Jan 2012 #145

Lol. Wrong again. Vattel Jan 2012 #156

Not true. The SCOTUS is the final say on what the Constitution says. yellowcanine Jan 2012 #52

Not even close MFrohike Jan 2012 #121

The Fat Amphibian also mentioned Roe vs. Wade. 2ndAmForComputers Jan 2012 #123

Refer to my original post MFrohike Jan 2012 #125

The SCOTUS is a part of the Government of the U.S. Disregarding a lawful ruling of the yellowcanine Jan 2012 #133

Wow MFrohike Jan 2012 #139

It is your logic which sucks. "Appeal to Ridicule" is considered a logical fallacy. Check it out. yellowcanine Jan 2012 #141

Righto MFrohike Jan 2012 #144

Uh, No dballance Jan 2012 #19

Defenders of civilization are not bound by your puny human laws nxylas Jan 2012 #25

Not even remotely MFrohike Jan 2012 #90

That whole checks and balances thing is so 1776-2011. Vattel Jan 2012 #24

Oh, just like the Nazis? sofa king Jan 2012 #29

Unfortunately, the Democrats also have some of those things in common. nt tpsbmam Jan 2012 #51

Evidently Newt thinks of the Presidency as a war zone on the Consititutional government lunatica Jan 2012 #31

what country is he from? barbtries Jan 2012 #33

Someone should ask him about exboyfil Jan 2012 #37

More like WE THE PEOPLE will ignore Noot RoccoR5955 Jan 2012 #39

so commit a high crime or treason right away.... Evasporque Jan 2012 #42

Of course, dotymed Jan 2012 #44

Imagine if Obama said such a thing... noel711 Jan 2012 #45

can we say dictator? n/t newfie11 Jan 2012 #46

Bananas Roy Rolling Jan 2012 #47

On his second day impeachment begins marias23 Jan 2012 #48

What happened to state's rights in this barf-bag's little brain? randome Jan 2012 #49

Isn't this more in keeping with establishing a Theocracy with some Fascism thrown in. olegramps Jan 2012 #50

Such unabashed arrogance....... Swede Atlanta Jan 2012 #53

Obama gave the Bush Jr crowd a pass for all of avebury Jan 2012 #54

Newt Gingrich: I would ignore supreme court as president AlbertCat Jan 2012 #55

It would almost be worth it to see Gingrich become president Hugabear Jan 2012 #56

I'm starting a campaign as of right now green917 Jan 2012 #57

And 3 mandatory debates with moderators picked by the opposing party! DetlefK Jan 2012 #62

we can see that our political debates in this country have become a three ring circus newspeak Jan 2012 #136

80% is pretty low ... GeorgeGist Jan 2012 #66

You have to get 6 of 10 correct to become a citizen green917 Jan 2012 #82

Great and I agree (nt) Tumbulu Jan 2012 #96

That comment has got to bristle some of the egos on the current Court. -nt CrispyQ Jan 2012 #58

Great news everyone! Citizens United no longer counts! DetlefK Jan 2012 #60

Is he trying to get back to his book tour? Seriously Maeve Jan 2012 #61

Perhaps newty would perfer the title of il duce instead? nt Javaman Jan 2012 #63

Channeling Andrew Jackson ... GeorgeGist Jan 2012 #65

"It's good to be KING! SammyWinstonJack Jan 2012 #67

Like Newt matters he's a LOLOLOLOLOLOL Veracious Jan 2012 #69

This is nothing short of an explicit rejection of the rule of law. ChadwickHenryWard Jan 2012 #71

you mean we may be looking at another dictator wannabe newspeak Jan 2012 #137

Newty wants an 'open' Supreme Court Kingofalldems Jan 2012 #72

LMAO +1,000,000 green917 Jan 2012 #83

So, Newt, does that mean Obama can ignore Citizens United? arbusto_baboso Jan 2012 #73

or better yet SCantiGOP Jan 2012 #74

I'm good with that, too. arbusto_baboso Jan 2012 #79

Newt's "jump the shark" moment. wtmusic Jan 2012 #85

If Newt ignores the Supreme Court, then I plan to ignore it, too. GodlessBiker Jan 2012 #86

That's kind of like an open marriage Sanity Claws Jan 2012 #87

People who don't think the law applies to them texshelters Jan 2012 #92

Only if they win JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2012 #98

He'd cheat on the Consitution in a second, or at least ask for an "open relationship" with it. JoePhilly Jan 2012 #93

Newt Chavez said what? Ikonoklast Jan 2012 #97

He's just lifting policies from Mein Kampf now Prophet 451 Jan 2012 #99

Funny. He is pointing out that rule of law is a myth in the US. ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #100

Thanks. Scurrilous Jan 2012 #103

"...the president can in fact ignore it", said Newt, adding, "if he's an asshole." cheapdate Jan 2012 #104

Gingrich won't be happy until he has Civil War II 47of74 Jan 2012 #105

If you ignore the Supreme Court like that sakabatou Jan 2012 #106

3 co-equal branches of government, you ignorant fuckstain DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #107

Just like he ignores his wedding vows and discard his women mazzarro Jan 2012 #111

He's channelling President Andy Jackson. Odin2005 Jan 2012 #112

Newt, what are we ever going to do with you? jmowreader Jan 2012 #113

Nutso!!! CherylK Jan 2012 #114

I hope Jon Stewart rips him a new one. DemonSpawn Jan 2012 #115

OK to impeach Clinton for personal affair, but not OK to impeach Newt for ignoring the constitution? on point Jan 2012 #116

How about that violate the oath of an office before you take the oath of office. gordianot Jan 2012 #127

Newtzi don't want to be president... Hubert Flottz Jan 2012 #129

I wonder how many abortions Mr. Open Marriage has been responsible for wordpix Jan 2012 #130

A BIG, FAT PHONY! DemonSpawn Jan 2012 #135

Learn some humility fat boy Mosaic Jan 2012 #148

He would be the absolute biggest disaster for this country. Initech Jan 2012 #149

Why would he need to? This court rubberstamps any rightwing nightmare anyway. primavera Jan 2012 #154

heaven ann--- Jan 2012 #155