I have said on any number of previous occasions that when it comes to how this political game of ours is played, that, at least from my point of view, I’ve wished those on our side would be a tad bit more willing to play the game in the same manner as it is constantly being played by those on the other side. And what I view as being the perfect way to do just that was very clearly laid out by none other than Newt Gingrich first in 2009 and again in 2011. Newt’s suggestion was to say that we should simply abolish the looney 9th Circuit court of appeals, altogether. And to my way of thinking he was really on to something. Those judges who cannot bring themselves to do that which they are supposed to do, interpret the Constitution as written, not in the way they wish it was written, should simply be abolished.
Now keep in mind here that that would be the very same 9th Circuit Court who so very famously declared that “Under God” was unconstitutional. And, as those who have been paying the slightest bit of attention, of late, it was also the Court which recently struck down President Trump’s travel ban. And if President Trump were to take the action laid out by Newt, it would be something not entirely unprecedented. Because, you see, it was something that was done by Thomas Jefferson back in 1802. Now if Trump is truly as serious as he claims to be, about his desire to keep America safe, then I think that he should at least consider taking this very bold step. It would certainly get everyone’s attention and leave no doubt that he will not be deterred when it comes to carrying out that which he promised to do.
It was back in 2011 that then Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said, in reiterating something he said as early as 2009, that if elected president he would work to abolish federal judges if he didn’t agree with their “anti-American” or “dictatorial” rulings. And it was during a Republican debate in Sioux City, Iowa, on Dec. 15, 2011 that Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly, no big surprise here, seemed to go out of her way to make mention of the fact that at least two ‘conservative’ former attorneys general had blasted Gingrich’s “dangerous” and “totally irresponsible” plan because it would alter the balance of powers. Leave it to Ms. Kelly, even then, to go out of her way to make clear on just what side of the political aisle it is that her allegiance lies. I’m sure she feels much more at home one NBC.
Now you can say what you want about Gingrich, but I think his recommendation then had a lot of merit and does even more so today. It was then that Gingrich said, “It alters the balance because the courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful.” And he then went on to say, “I’ve been working on this project since 2002 when the Ninth Circuit court said that ‘one nation under God’ is unconstitutional in the Pledge of Allegiance. And I decided that if you had judges that were so radically anti-American that they thought ‘one nation under God’ was wrong, they shouldn’t be on the court.” He then added, “Like Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and FDR, I would be prepared to take on the judiciary if, in fact, it did not restrict what it was doing.”
As for those conservative former attorneys general, Gingrich wanted to know if they had actually ever studied “Jefferson, who in 1802 abolished 18 out of 35 federal judges?” He said, “I would suggest to you, actually as a historian, I may understand this better than lawyers, and as lawyers, those two attorneys general are behaving exactly like law schools which have overly empowered lawyers that they can dictate to the rest of us.” He insisted, “I would suggest to you, actually as a historian, I may understand this better than lawyers, and as lawyers, those two attorneys general are behaving exactly like law schools which have overly empowered lawyers that they can dictate to the rest of us.” Just because it’s the way things have always been done, isn’t really reason enough to keep doing it that way.
So once again we have what is an original and very thoughtful approach coming from Mr. Gingrich to that which has become a growing and, rather significant, problem. The infiltration of the courts by all manner of statists and collectivists has been detrimental to the Republic in so many ways, ranging from the one-man’s re-writing of the Constitution on issues as basic as the millennia old definition of marriage or the invention of whole new "rights" never even mentioned in the Constitution based on "emanations" to the implementation of arbitrary opinions of a single judge on how a school district should be organized or a curriculum taught. Elimination of insane outlier courts would be a nice step and I would have no objection whatsoever if the first court to would be the 9th District court of appeals.
I for one would be very much in favor of President Trump taking such an action, and for a couple of pretty significant reasons. For one thing I’m pretty sure it would leave no doubt amongst the many ‘snowflakes’, Democrats as well as those who wish to come here for no other reason than to kill us, that he is quite serious when he says that he intends to keep America, and Americans, safe. Haven’t we had enough leftwing-pansy-ass-bullshit over the last eight years? We finally have a president who we can expect to act as the adult in the room and not some childish crybaby. Just because something hasn’t been done in a while, 215 years, it doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be done again. Especially not when we’re talking about something as important as keeping the homeland safe from terrorists!
Let’s face it, how much more can those on the left hate President Trump than they already do. And how much more unhinged can they possibly become than they already are? Look, the time has come to get serious about preventing those individuals who wish to do us harm the ability to come into this country. And if the left, be they judges, politicians, or just your common garden variety liberal morons, can’t see the importance of doing so, then screw them. What exactly should be the priority here? If the left were to have their way we’d have no borders at all, no vetting whatsoever of those flooding in and no way to get rid of the undesirables among those entering the country. And how stupid is that, let alone reckless and more than a little dangerous? It would seem that liberalism is a mental illness.