You would think that someone who has been working in politics since 1968 would have some idea how government works and the constitutional separation of powers, but then again, Newt Gingrich has never considered himself lowly enough to such pedantic details. And it true "up-is-down" Orwellian fashion, he has such a carefully crafted rationalization that he is the only one that can protect us from the constitutional crisis that judges upholding the First Amendment pose.
I'm beginning to believe that "conservative" is an inadequate label in which to apply to the Newtster. Listening to him talk to Bob Schieffer, I believe the more accurate description of him is "anarcho-fascist" in all its paradoxical glory:
There’s “no reason the American people need to tolerate a judge that out of touch with American culture,” Gingrich said on CBS’ Face the Nation, referring to a case where a judge ruled that explicit references to religion were barred from a high school graduation ceremony. And Gingrich recently has said judges should have to explain some of their decisions before Congress.
Host Bob Schieffer asked Gingrich how he planned to enforce that. Would you call in the Capitol Police to apprehend a federal judge, he asked.
“If you had to,” Gingrich said. “Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send the U.S. Marshall in.”
A judge should have to explain his or her radical decisions, Gingrich emphasized again. Gingrich’s tough words against the judiciary branch have drawn fire from even conservatives. Former attorney general under President George W. Bush, Michael Mukasey, told Fox News that Gingrich’s proposals were “dangerous” and “totally irresponsible.”
By the way, that Judge Biery that has Newtie's knickers in a bunch? He has been an ongoing rallying cry for Gingrich (whose personal "deep" religious convictions did not prevent him from breaking two or three juicy commandments, mind you) because he ruled that the school district governing Medina Valley High School outside San Antonio, Texas, could not include a benediction or prayer as part of their graduation ceremony. Damn that separation of Church and State clause. It really doesn't signify that Biery specifically said that individual students were not prohibited from praying or referencing God; that's much too nuanced for those right-wingers desperate for proof of Christian persecution in this country. In this particular case, the ruling was swiftly overturned and the invocation and benediction went on as planned at Medina Valley High. The self-described 'agnostic' student who filed the lawsuit bypassed the ceremony. Texas's status as a backwater, Constitution-ignoring, Christofascist community is intact. But Newt is still gunning for that judge, calling for his arrest and impeachment.
I agree with Gingrich that we have some seriously disturbing activist judges on the court. Unfortunately, I think we differ greatly on what constitutes activism. Citizen's United? Activist. Telling a school district that an official prayer signifies an official sanction of a specific religion but individual students can exercise their faith as they see fit? That's not radical, that's what our Founding Fathers advocated.
Too bad The Historian isn't able to distinguish that.
