T1B

Felix wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Yes, you did.

no, here's what gingrich said

Newt Gingrich wrote: While abolishing judgeships and lower federal courts is a blunt tool and one whose use is warranted only in the most extreme of circumstances ... it is one of many possibilities to check and balance the judiciary,” he wrote. “Other constitutional options, including impeachment, are better suited” to check wayward judges.

okay now show me where he mentioned congress anywhere in that statement....

sure it does, but congress had better have pretty compelling reasons for bringing a federal judge up on impeachment charges and I don't think not caring for a ruling fits that particular criteria...

Van wrote:Felxi

mvscal wrote:
You're only posting a small portion of the piece. The powers referenced in that excerpt are legislative powers.

I think issuing arbitrary and/or poorly supported decisions is a "pretty compelling reason" for issuing a subpoena. If the answers are not satisfactory, then impeachment is certainly an appropriate remedy.

You might disagree with his take, but he has proposed nothing that is dangerous, unconstitutional or unprecedented. In fact, I think it would be very healthy for justices to be occassionally dragged before Congressional committees to answer for their decisions and shitcanned if they fail to justify their rulings.

Felix wrote:he's got no business proposing any such thing...it's not his business, it's the business of the Congress....

Moving Sale wrote:

Van wrote:The ol' place seems kinda empty when you go on hiatus.

I'd say the same about you, but it would be a lie.

mvscal wrote:You think he doesn't know that? He was only Speaker of the House. Asking Congress to look into a shitheel judge isn't an overstep of presidential authority. Presidents ask Congress for things all the time. What do you think a budget proposal is? Congress would certainly be free to tell 'President' Gingrich to blow it out his ass if he asked Congress to subpoena a judge for a controversial decision and the House disagreed.

Diego in Seattle wrote:Newt's right...we should have the justices arrested for declaring that corporations are people.

some yahoo on democraticunderground.com wrote:I refuse to believe that corporations are people until Texas executes one.

mvscal wrote:Presidents ask Congress for things all the time.

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote:Presidents ask Congress for things all the time.

He is advocating using US marshals to drag people in front of Congress.
Please cite the POTUS's legal authority to do so you racist piece of shit.

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote:Presidents ask Congress for things all the time.

He is advocating using US marshals to drag people in front of Congress.
Please cite the POTUS's legal authority to do so you racist piece of shit.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:There's cheating and then there's what Newt did. She could have been the worst wife ever, but serving her with divorce papers when she was undergoing chemo was an all time dick move.

That story is total horseshit.

Mace wrote:His foreign policy stance raises lots of questions for me, but I think I can buy in to most of it.

War Wagon wrote: Abolish the Federal Reserve system and return to the gold standard?

Mace wrote:I haven't heard him mention repealing the Civil Rights Act, Wags, but I'd be interested in knowing why he wants to do that.

Dr. Ron Paul wrote:On June 4, 2004, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Act. Only the heroic Ron Paul dissented. Here are his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

Dr. Ron Paul wrote:The economic establishment in this country has come to the conclusion that it is not a matter of "if" the United States must intervene in the bailout of the euro, but simply a question of "when" and "how". Newspaper articles and editorials are full of assertions that the breakup of the euro would result in a worldwide depression, and that economic assistance to Europe is the only way to stave off this calamity. These assertions are yet again more scare-mongering, just as we witnessed during the depths of the 2008 financial crisis. After just a decade of the euro, people have forgotten that Europe functioned for centuries without a common currency.


The real cause of economic depression is loose monetary policy: the creation of money and credit out of thin air and the monetization of government debt by a central bank. This inflationary monetary policy is the cause of every boom and bust, yet it is precisely what political and economic elites both in Europe and the United States are prescribing as a resolution for the present crisis. The drastic next step being discussed is a multi-trillion dollar bailout of Europe by the European Central Bank, aided by the IMF and the Federal Reserve.

The euro was built on an unstable foundation. Its creators attempted to establish a dollar-like currency for Europe, while forgetting that it took nearly two centuries for the dollar to devolve from a defined unit of silver to a completely unbacked fiat currency note. The euro had no such history and from the outset was a purely fiat system, thus it is not surprising to followers of Austrian economics that it barely survived a decade and is now completely collapsing. Europe's economic depression is the result of the euro's very structure, a fiat money system that allowed member governments to spend themselves into oblivion and expect that someone else would pick up the tab.

A bailout of European banks by the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve will exacerbate the crisis rather than alleviate it. What is needed is for bad debts to be liquidated. Banks that invested in sovereign debt need to take their losses rather than socializing those losses and prolonging the process of adjusting their balance sheets to reflect reality. If this was done, the correction would be painful, but quick, like tearing off a large band-aid, but this is necessary to get back on solid economic footing. Until the correction takes place there can be no recovery. Bailing out profligate European governments will only ensure that no correction will take place.

A multi-trillion dollar European aid package cannot be undertaken by Europe alone, and will require IMF and Federal Reserve involvement. The Federal Reserve already has pumped trillions of dollars into the US economy with nothing to show for it. Just considering Fed involvement in Europe is ludicrous. The US economy is in horrible shape precisely because of too much government debt and too much money creation and the European economy is destined to flounder for the same reasons. We have an unsustainable amount of debt here at home; it is hardly fair to US taxpayers to take on Europe's debt as well. That will only ensure an accelerated erosion of the dollar and a lower standard of living for all Americans.

Dinsdale wrote:

War Wagon wrote: Abolish the Federal Reserve system and return to the gold standard?

Heaven forbid that currency is based on something tangible,

mvscal wrote:What's so tangible about gold?

mvscal wrote: Who the fuck do you think serves the subpoenas in the first place, you stupid asshole?

Dinsdale wrote: That, and Dr. Paul didn't proofread/edit a newsletter bearing his nae (sic)20 years ago.

Moving Bowels wrote:
I would be laughed out of court

Moving Sale wrote:Your boy needs to take responsibility for his actions.

mvscal wrote:What's so tangible about gold? It's a good conductor but essentially worthless in any practical sense. The only thing that makes it valuable is that we all agree that it has value. Fundamentally, it is no different than fiat currency.