1. Goldman Sachs tries to raise Islamic bonds ( called Sukuk ). The proposed bond issuance isn't approved because the bond's structure is fraudulent & not in compliance of Shariah standards.
2. Kudos to the regulatory officers who blocks & prevents Goldman Sachs' plan.
3. Refer : Business week & Bloomberg dated Dec 21, 2011
There is no judicial system if they can't make judgements based on what they truly think the law is and not what politicians want them to think. If they had to do what politicians want, there wouldn't even need to be an amendment process: they'd just force the courts to interpret the Constitution the way they wanted instead.
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison
@FuryFlurry1 The politicians make the law, that is their job. Arguing it is somehow out of bounds for those same politicians to explain what the laws they wrote mean is absurd. Courts are meant to interpret the law to the specific circumstances of the case before them. They are not meant to change the meaning of the law from what the elected representatives of the people intended it to be.
Quoting a court arguing for greater power for the court does not help your case.
1. 1998 Brooksley Born ( white woman ) wanted to regulate the subprime mortages. She was Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in America.
2. 5 Jews defeated her : Alan Greenspan. Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Arthur Levitt & Timothy Geithner ( appointed Obama's Treasury Secretary )
3. In 2008 these subprime mortgages exploded & thousand of Americans were homeless.
@Oldcartoons571 Don't support him unless you're just another America hating reich wing. He will go to jail, and its perfectly cool that he will get raped and exicuted for his crimes against America. Thats what should happen to his kind, they hate free people.
@nnjhansen Because by forcing a liberal judge to answer a conservative Congress, you'll make that judge rule in fear and be more conservative. And by forcing a conservative judge to answer a liberal Congress, you'll make that judge more liberal and, to you, more 'activist'. I'm sure you'll then demand the justices shouldn't answer to Congress when that happens. BE FORTUNATE of the current make up of the court. You can't get everthing you want.
@unknownunknowns A judge should not consider himself conservative or liberal and if he is faithful to the law it should not matter if the Congress is conservative or liberal. A judge who is confident of his legal position should not fear answering questions about it, he should relish the opportunity.
Wouldn't questioning a judge be a preliminary step in determining if impeachment was warranted?
@nnjhansen If you don't like a ruling, you can always get rid of that judge thru impeachment for 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. But you'll say, "What is that?" That's why there's a majority vote in the House and a 2/3rds vote in the Senate to remove him or her to provide at least some justification. Just look at the few House Dems who are trying to impeach Clarence Thomas for his alleged tax evasion before he makes his ruling on Obamacare.
Really nutty people get elected president if they have tons of SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY, cover for the BANKSTERS, learn how to lie professionally (BIG LIE TECHNIQUE) and move their loyalty (ALLEGIANCE) to ISRAEL. There have been some real losers moved into the office as president in the near past. It is about to happen again as the slick media hype once again confuses and deceives the electorate in America. Big money is about to trump liberty once again, as slick manipulators rig the elections
I bet if there were Muslim people trying to lead prayers in school the republicans would be waving the constitution and touting separation of church and state.
Where in the constitution is abortion and gay marriage banned
@brently1437 The arguments made in the various court decisions that found a 'right' to abortion or same sex marriage were not premised on the Constitution failing to explicitly banning these activities but there being an affirmative right to them in the Constitution.
@nnjhansen Generally when something is "premised", it indicates "past practice", or "precedent". Of which both topics, gay marriage and abortion, had absolutely none. Until only recently have individuals who have no respect for human life, and want to be able to destroy other life for the purpose of pure convenience.... or those who decided to eliminated 6000 years of past practice and tradition of marriage, pushed the judiciary to give a so-called "right" where one never existed.
New YouTube comment interface useless fail. Doesn't allow me to reply to people who responded to my comment. Am I suppose to scour the 100s of comments to find the person YouTube?
How is being forced before congress to be grilled for decisions made, not eliminating their power?
If you live in fear of a congressional inquisition, you will make decisions based on who controls congress. Congress would have the power, and you none.
Congress is already full of unethical turds, why give them more power?
@Blairtim69 What makes you think the ethical make up of the federal judiciary is any better than that of the Congress?
Answering questions does not cause you to lose power. You may be forced to examine your rulings more closely if you know you will be publicly questioned but that is a good thing.
You seem to think judges should answer to no one. Are they immune to over stepping their power?
What is the point of answering questions, if there are no consequences? Consequences will affect their decisions.
Do you want a liberal congress to call all the conservative judges in for questioning, I sure don’t want a conservative congress questioning liberal judges, I only see patrician chaos with this plan.
If people don’t like decisions, they can appeal, judges answer to their superior courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court.
@Blairtim69 Of course there may be consequences. If they cannot justify and defend their decisions they will be properly humiliated publicly and if their behavior is egregious enough they may warrant impeachment.
I have no problem with a liberal Congress calling a conservative judge before it. Conservative judges tend to base their opinions on what is actually in the Constitution rather than what they wish was there.
I can understand why you would not want liberal judges questioned
@Blairtim69 Really? Where in the Constitution does one find a penumbra? Liberal judicial activists have made up a constitutional right to abortion out of whole cloth. They decided school prayer was magically prohibited despite the fact that it was permitted by every state legislature that ratified the applicable amendments.
Where does the Constitution demand marriage be redefined?
You really should look at what the founding fathers had to say about the balances of power between the three branches of government and the history of judicial review before mocking Gingrich's opinions on these subjects. It demonstrates your ignorance of history and political theory when you so lightly dismiss valid positions without even considering if something went wrong somewhere along the way. Are you afraid of the airing of ideas before voters...or just playing your own game of politics?
We already have a shortage of judges, because the senate won’t approve of Obama’s nominations.
If we follow Gingrich’s idea, Obama could arrest all the judges he considers activists, and clean out all the conservative judges, then the republican President can do the same.
And when either nominates a judge they like, the senate can reject them.
Someone needs to tell "Kaiser" Gingrich that we have laws in the US and you can't just "arrest" judges which you politically disagree with.. Sure it would make ruling a country alot easier if you could just put people in prison who disagree with your political views.. Works for small third world countries just fine..
@ddnguyen278 Newt is not advocating arresting judges that he disagrees with. He advocates Congress calling judges before Congress to testify and explain the reasoning behind their decisions to the representatives of the American people. The only reason the Capitol Police or US Marshals entered the discussion is because Schieffer asked how he would enforce a congressional subpoena against a judge. His answer is the same way any other subpoena is enforced.
The representatives should be brought before the judges, for accepting bribes from lobbyists, allowing lobbyists to write laws and for insider trading. The federal judges are to enforce the constitution, and make sure no laws violate the constitution, having them answer to congress, basically eliminates the third branch of government.
I understand conservatives hate liberty and justice, but Gingrich’s move is to obvious of an attack on the constitution.
@Blairtim69 If the representatives accept bribes, they should be prosecuted but that is irrelevant to this discussion.
The role of the federal judge is to adjudicate disputes in law and equity. They may have to interpret the Constitution as part of that duty but they are not to amend it based on their own policy preferences
Please explain how having them explain their reasoning to Congress, just as executive branch officials do, 'basically eliminates' their branch of government.
One of their main duties is to decide if a law violates the constitution, and if it does to strike it down.
Who decides what an “activist judge” is?
If we force them to answer to congress, then congress would have power over the judges, this would destroy the power structure of our government. We have a crisis in filling empty seats, how many judges are going to want congress second guessing their decisions based on the current wind direction.
@Blairtim69 How does answering questions and defending your argument result in you losing power? Such is the case only if you cannot defend your argument. Why should judges not be worried about being second guessed? Members of every other branch of government are.
It comes down to who you believe should ultimately decide what the Constitution means. The first three words of my copy of the Constitution are not, "We the Judges."
The separation of powers is important part of how the government works. Otherwise a liberal congress will be calling conservative judges, and vise verses. It would disrupt the duties of judges, by putting them through patrician witch trials.
I would be happy if all the activist conservative judges were gone.
Article 1 and article 3 of the constitution states the responsibilities of the judicial branch, judges are to decide if laws passed are constitutional.
@Blairtim69 If separation of powers is a concern, why is it appropriate for executive branch officials to be called before Congress?
Are you arguing that their duties are not disrupted by such testimony?
Article 3 sets out the duties of the Judicial branch, nowhere does it state that 'judges are to decide if laws passed are constitutional.' In fact, Art 3, Section 2 limits the courts' jurisdictions to 'with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Judicial is chosen by executive and approved by the senate; also judges can have their decisions appealed.
Marbury v. Madison,(1803) formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.
I would love to see Obama start calling activist judges before congress, and have them eliminated for their conservative stand, but it would place the judicial branch even more into partisan politics than they are already.
@Blairtim69 OK, legislators are chosen by the people and the people can remove them at the next election. What is your point?
So, this power is one that the courts bestowed upon itself?
Obama cannot call anyone before Congress, that is the job of Congress. Impeaching a judge is also a congressional responsibility that the president has no role in.
@nnjhansen Thier reasoning is usually well laid out in their decisions which is public record. If congresses' summons to the judges are ignored he would have to arrest them and drag them to congress. That is implied in any summons issuance. What happens if your local court summons you and you refuse to show up? IMO congress lacks this power and the judical branch will be the one to decide any cases brought against judges. How do you think that will turn out? Gingrich is nuts!
@owensaruba If their reasoning is sound, what is the problem with answering questions of a co-equal branch of government regarding it?
By what measure does Congress lack the power? Congress has the power to issue and enforce subpoenas. It does so all the time. It can also hold those who refuse to comply in contempt of Congress. The judiciary would not necessarily play any role. Remember, with the exception of the Supreme Court, the federal courts are a creation of Congress.
@nnjhansen I have no problem with them voluntarily explaining themselves. To threaten arrest, expressly or implied,not because you think they made a bad decision but rather you, or your constituents, don't like that decision is just foolish. It has been rare that I have read a ruling that failed to provide clarity, whether I agreed with it or not. What if you had a case before the court and congress didn't like the favorable decision you got? Want them interfering? I don't!
@owensaruba Normally an invitation is extended to testify voluntarily first but Congress does have subpoena power and enforcing its subpoenas is part of that power.
I do not share your high opinion of most court decisions. I see no reason why a judge should be immune to the type of questioning bu Congress that lawyers are subject to at oral argument. If their argument is sound, they can defend it.
@nnjhansen In several federal cases I have helped out on we have declined magistrate involvement and have recused judges that act in a biased manner. A judges "judicial immunity" is well defined and specific, they are not without limits! This is a duty of the lawyers, juries and appeals courts. The judiciary does have checks, the ones I listed and jury nullification. If Congress had this power why haven't they used it, ever? They will abuse it to suit their political ambitions.
@owensaruba Judicial immunity applies to civil litigation against a judge for official acts not from oversight by another branch of government.
Allowing higher courts to act as a check is not a check on the power of the courts. Jury nullification is not a check on judicial power at the appellate level.
If Congress were to abuse it, there is a check on their power as well. We the people can elect new members.
The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights given to Americans by government. Rather, the Bill of Rights provides a list of rights that are inherently ours, so they can’t be removed by the government. It is your duty as a voting member of society to understand this and NEVER vote for anyone who would breach the law. There are only 7 Senators who voted against NDAA. The rest must be replaced. nearly 2/3 of the House members also need to be replaced. Vote carefully RON PAUL 2012
This is what this country needs. Our Judges are OUT OF CONTROL!! With no consequences to their actions. I think some of them should be called in front of Congress on National TV, and explain to the country why they make some of the decisions they do. As soon as they need to explain themselves, you'd be amazed at how all of a sudden, these stupid Anti-American decisions will suddenly change.
The reason Judges don't have responsibility to anyone is that it's the whole point of a judge. The second they have responsibility to anyone, worst of all the lawmakers, their objectivity is out of the window. When you disagree, you find a higher judge. Apart from being against the constitution of your country, you'd be killing the trias politica. They can do nothing but check, and you call that unlimitited power? The huge ability to say that something is against the law?
@FireCannon27 That's ridiculous. Even Thomas Jefferson said, "That's Absurd!!! The Supreme Court is not Supreme. That would be an Oligarchy, and all our freedom would be lost."
That's why Jefferson himself abolished over a dozen judges while he was in office. They were assuming too much power. Judges NEED to be held accountable to someone for their actions. This is why we are having so many problems today. They are getting away with literally legislating from the bench.
@PatriotCondor Jefferson was wrong... The Judges are appointed and make decisions based on the constitution. Laws are passed by congress and interpreted by Judges. If the Judge is caught abusing powers, he can be impeached by the congress... not by President Newt! If you were a judge, you need some protection... protection from maybe a crazy president that may disagree with your decisions. This is the democratic process.
@davejsmith Newt didn't say the President should be able to just eliminate a judge. He did call for using the bully-pulpit to push Congress to do so, and be able to have them subpeona'd in order to publicly answer for their actions. This I agree with. He never at any point said the President alone should be able to impeach and remove judiciary. When reference is made to Jefferson eliminating Judges, he pushed Congress to impeach judges and eliminate districts.
@davejsmith Yes laws are interpretted by Judges. What Newt is referring to, is Judges who take laws that have been legally enacted by the states, and using their own assumed power, make them null and void to saitisfy their political agenda. Such as the marriage law in California.
Another is when you have Judges telling citizens what they can and can't say in reference to religion in a public place. That's rediculous. Those judges should be called and pushed to have Congress impeach them.
@PatriotCondor I agree that any personal interests should be investigated. If the judge is found to have any personal benefit or gain then that Judge should be impeached.
I hope these judges are being honest, because there job is trusted... the most trusted.
@PatriotCondor So when you do not like a decision made by an independent body, you know one of those things that set us apart from say, Iran. You get rid of them and a few years later, off we go to stand before Emperor Gingrich. What a brilliant step back in time. I know with all the real problems, like Jobs, Housing and war, this getting rid of judges, is a better way to spend time on a campaign for the new King of the USA
executive branch was given too much power in the last 2 decades. Now the branch is trying to hobble the other 2 branches ability to check and balance it. Slippery slope to a dictatorship. All hail Senator Palpatine.
If anyone needs to do any explaining, it should be someone explaining why this dumb fuck is a potential nominee. GTFOff my screen Gingrich. Don't come back.
Newt's position essentially destroys the United States of America. Period. This all goes back to the numbing and dumbing down of the country by poor education and the exploitation of that fact by FOX NEWS.
1. Why would congressional oversight for judicial decisions be substantively different than such oversight for executive decisions? Executive branch officials appear before Congress to explain their decision regularly.
2. Why would it be inappropriate for the Capitol Police or US Marshals to enforce a congressional subpoena against a federal judge if those agencies are used to enforce them against others?
If you have noticed lately that both the Democratic party and the Republican party are trying their best to turn this country into a dictatorship.... Revolution is coming
it's dangerous because it would effectively weaken the judiciary to the point that they'd be unable to actually do their jobs without having to worry about some member of the religious right hauling them before congress to explain why they ruled in favor of gay marriage or overturned anti-abortion laws that violate women's rights to do what they see fit with their bodies because the religious right is made up of selfish sociopathic busybodies.
This guy . . . he Really is a historian, imitating dictators who started out as elected leaders, like from the Mexican revolution and Xinhai revolution.
3. Given that Gingrich was speaking specifically of court decisions that limited a president's Article II powers, why is one branch of gov't required to accept the limits placed on its enumerated powers by another co-equal branch of government? Lincoln did not accept the Court's Dred Scott decision as binding on his executive branch powers. No president has accepted the limits the War Powers Act places on the president's power as commander in chief.
1. Why would congressional oversight for judicial decisions be substantively different than such oversight for executive decisions? Executive branch officials appear before Congress to explain their decision regularly.
2. Why would it be inappropriate for the Capitol Police or US Marshals to enforce a congressional subpoena against a federal judge if those agencies are used to enforce them against others?
@nnjhansen as the weakest of 3 branches they get this protection for their decisions giving them an appropriate protection from political witch hunts and such. They can be arrested for criminal activity like that teens for cash scandal
@BushidoBrownSama Please explain how it is the weakest branch if it is immune to any real check or balance on its power? The courts have engaged in de facto amending of the constitution for decades, leaving the people and their elected representatives with little real recourse to rectify the situation. If this deference was appropriate when courts acted as the weakest branch, it is not longer so.
@nnjhansen The Executive and Legislative branches are elected officials. But the Judicial branch is made up of officials appointed by the Executive branch with the consent and advice of the Legislative branch. How much more control over the judges do you want the President and Congress to have? We also need a branch that isn't subject to a constant popularity contest. Our current system has worked pretty well for the past 222 years and I don't see any real need to change it.
@icemachine79 The President and Congress have no control over the judiciary once the judges are confirmed, that is the crux of the problem. There is no substantive check on the power of the courts to run roughshod over the Constitution. We all accept that occasionally the President or Congress may exceed its constitutional authority and we count on another branch or the people to correct it. No such correction is possible with the courts as the situation exists today.
Cenk, when someone tells you what you can or can not put in your body....you're already living in a communist state..there are several more examples if you like.. like you can protest....but not here....when they tell us where we can or cannot protest, were already in a communist state...
Psychopathy: (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) is a personality disorder characterized primarily by a lack of empathy and remorse, shallow emotions, egocentricity, and deceptiveness.
A man who served his wife divorce paper while she was fighting cancer in the hospital.
Gingrich is a true psychopath.
How everyone can not see it plain as day, is beyond me!
It's not surprising. Bush was, and still is free, and so is Cheney. Both of them should be prosecuted under CURRENT US law. What do you expect? if they did it, it must be acceptable.
@Kibouchan4 "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" Oh awesome, that's one of those nice euphemisms people throw out there to make up for someone's problems. Back in the day that one was called "Evil Asshole".
i cannot believe how straight-faced Newt is about the things he says. He could not be more shielded from real life and how normal people live. He is so far in his bubble he can't see out
Look Cenk, you have to understand New Gingrich and put yourself in his postion. If I was him I'd be pissed off at certain people and be supremely evil everyday too. And on top of that he probably has an insanely small penis as most people with power have because they need to have a career like that to make up for their physical shortcomings. He looks like a cartoon villain and has a phallus deficit. It's not rocket science. He's pretty much a cliché. Poor Newt.
So here comes this asshole again. I think that this may be necessary in order to stop all of these fucking activist judges. They often push forward an agenda, which is meant to do nothing but advance the dumbass liberal cause. These liberal assholes want judges who want to rule that somehow welfare is constitutional, as in that is actually want the constitution says. The danger here isn't Gingrich, it's Cenk trying to promote his fascist agenda through Wolf-PAC and through the courts.
how can gay marriages ever be declared constitutional? anyone actually thinks founding fathers wanted to give gays these rights? only activist liberal judges are so depraved! newt has a good point. there are provisions in the constitution dealing with judges who over step
The GOP votes for TAX CUTS for all billionaires and then VOTES NO for TAX CUTS for the middle class worker.
It's time to throw every member in the GOP to the unemployment line so they can show their GED and take a pee test to collect their unemployment check.
The sad part is if any Democratic Presidential candidate said the exact same thing, Newt Gingrich would call him a Communist/Fascist/Marxist/Socialist dictator.
Mit is a mormon, so there you go. Who does "it" seem unfair too? The majority of the nation is white and christian so of course most candidates are white and christian. Here is a shocker for you most Prime Ministers in Europe are white and Christian.
@Plato86 By "it" I mean the fact that you just pointed out. Why do old, white, christian men seem to be the politicians of countries so often. we rarely see people who vary from that group in any way. True, there are a few, like mitt, obama or michelle, but the vary only slightly from that group. So why is it we get old white christian guys as the people who are meant to represent the public the majority of the time. Their group can't possibly be the majority of the population.
It depends what countries you are talking about. Old white christian men are not the majority of politicians in Africa, Asia or the Middle East. However in the Europe and the Americas old white christian men are not the majority, technically christian white women are the majority in the West, but are the most active when it comes to politics. We white men are at the head of the power structure in the West and like any other group we tend to vote for people who look like us.
@Plato86 That's true. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a little more variety in the West when it comes to politicians? Variation in my opinion, would make a better government.
@nnjhansen More opinions. If the majority of people in government have a similar background (i.e, white christian males) they are more likely to make decisions in favour of that group. If we get more groups in government from various backgrounds, they will likely do a better job representing and making decisions for the people, as they are meant to do. We can still have a few old, white christian men, but seeing how they are doing as the majority now, some variety would be welcome.
@SuperGreenSmartie We elect our representatives on the basis on location, legislative districts, states, etc... Are you saying that a white, Christian man from Fort Smith, Arkansas has more in common with a white, Christian man from LA than he does with the black woman who lives next door to him or that the man in LA has more in common with the man in AR than the Jewish man he grew up with?
The idea that political opinions are based on sex, religion, and color is antithetical to American ideals.
I just realized that I agree with New. In fact, I'll go him one better. I think that anytime that an act of government comes under constitutional review, the instigators should have to come before the court and explain themselves.For example,if the Congress were to pass a law requiring the Bible to be used as a science text book, everybody who voted for it should come before the the various courts to explain themselves (no lawyer proxies). Throw in the President as well. It seems only fair.
The GOP votes for TAX CUTS for all billionaires and then VOTES NO for TAX CUTS for the middle class worker.
It's time to throw every member in the GOP to the unemployment line so they can show their GED and take a pee test to collect their unemployment check.
Palin is a joke. The entire GOP is a joke . They all are for the same failed economic policies of Bush. They only represent less personal freedom and millionaires. Not the poor or middle class
Newt Gingrich is TRULY Sarah Palin's DICKLESS and BALLESS BITCH and PUSSY! Palin is VASTLY SUPERIOR to this ass-clown in every single way! Palin PWNS this RINO goofball and she will EXPOSE HIS PUSSY for the whole world to see!
Newt is just crazy enough to be entertaining enough to be always in the news and keeping everyone smiling. USA USA USA USA
TotalImplosion 2 weeks ago
Use any/all adjectives you want and they'll still mean Newt & followers are NUTS!!!!!
TheSchmuckLook 1 month ago
By "Big Government" do Republicans mean power not resting in the hands of one central leader?
Fucking idiots.
MyTemporaryAccount88 1 month ago
@MyTemporaryAccount88 No, by 'Big Government' they mean power not resting in the hands of the people.
Idiot.
nnjhansen 1 month ago
this is what a dictatorship looks like.
BigDamnHeroesSir 1 month ago
@BigDamnHeroesSir your right! the media dictates who we will vote for!!!
truthtify321 1 month ago
The system is gonna crash...
AlmostTooLateNow 1 month ago
WTF King Newt?!
ScaperSteph 1 month ago
The Grinch fucks up again
TheCreeperhunter 1 month ago
he has a 666 on his forehead
caessarion 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jew spits at Christians in Israel
Reference : Ynet newspaper ( a newspaper in Israel )
Date : 15th December 2011
Title : ADL: Spitting at Christians a 'repulsive act'
Note : Please check for verification.
Stevie68000 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Support Ron Paul.
Google "Political positions of Ron Paul" And look at the Wiki links or ThePoliticalGuide
Less government spending, less taxation to American Citizens, a budget plan that works.
This man has been fighting for your personal freedom and the separation of congress from big business for years.
He is a man who stands against the war on drugs, the foreign wars, and corporate bail outs.
Vote for liberty this year. Vote for real change.
Thumb up and spread the message!
RapsAlive 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jew & Islamic Bond :
1. Goldman Sachs tries to raise Islamic bonds ( called Sukuk ). The proposed bond issuance isn't approved because the bond's structure is fraudulent & not in compliance of Shariah standards.
2. Kudos to the regulatory officers who blocks & prevents Goldman Sachs' plan.
3. Refer : Business week & Bloomberg dated Dec 21, 2011
4. Goldman Scahs CEO, Lyold Blankfein is Jew
Stevie68000 2 months ago
newt's narcissism is only surpassed by his stupidity, this video is merely a drop of evidence in the bucket
OpiatedBliss 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
That's it. If you haven't made plans to have to bail ship if the need arises, do it NOW.
Keep your passports up to date, people. "Don't be that guy" who thought it'd work itself out!
marcatiede 2 months ago
I was under the impression that the justice department owned the president not the other way around.
mitenzouki 2 months ago
There is no judicial system if they can't make judgements based on what they truly think the law is and not what politicians want them to think. If they had to do what politicians want, there wouldn't even need to be an amendment process: they'd just force the courts to interpret the Constitution the way they wanted instead.
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison
FuryFlurry1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FuryFlurry1 The politicians make the law, that is their job. Arguing it is somehow out of bounds for those same politicians to explain what the laws they wrote mean is absurd. Courts are meant to interpret the law to the specific circumstances of the case before them. They are not meant to change the meaning of the law from what the elected representatives of the people intended it to be.
Quoting a court arguing for greater power for the court does not help your case.
nnjhansen 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A free citizen voting for Newt Gingrich is like a gay black jew voting for Hitler.
MrG0TH1ER 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jew & Economic Destruction
1. 1998 Brooksley Born ( white woman ) wanted to regulate the subprime mortages. She was Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in America.
2. 5 Jews defeated her : Alan Greenspan. Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Arthur Levitt & Timothy Geithner ( appointed Obama's Treasury Secretary )
3. In 2008 these subprime mortgages exploded & thousand of Americans were homeless.
4. Watch PBS video " The Warning " on youtube
5. Testimony to US Congress included
Stevie68000 2 months ago
@Oldcartoons571 Don't support him unless you're just another America hating reich wing. He will go to jail, and its perfectly cool that he will get raped and exicuted for his crimes against America. Thats what should happen to his kind, they hate free people.
pistolpete1st 2 months ago
guess we will be burning witches soon as well
philosophicalreason 2 months ago
@philosophicalreason Right... because asking judges to answer questions leads to burning witches???
nnjhansen 2 months ago
@nnjhansen When you start roping them up with Marshalls to answer questions by politicizing blowhards, yeah.
pueblonative 2 months ago
@pueblonative The Marshals would only become an issue if the judge refused a lawful congressional subpoena.
Those 'politicizing blowhards' are the elected representatives of the American people, why shouldn't judges answer their questions?
nnjhansen 2 months ago
@nnjhansen Because by forcing a liberal judge to answer a conservative Congress, you'll make that judge rule in fear and be more conservative. And by forcing a conservative judge to answer a liberal Congress, you'll make that judge more liberal and, to you, more 'activist'. I'm sure you'll then demand the justices shouldn't answer to Congress when that happens. BE FORTUNATE of the current make up of the court. You can't get everthing you want.
unknownunknowns 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unknownunknowns A judge should not consider himself conservative or liberal and if he is faithful to the law it should not matter if the Congress is conservative or liberal. A judge who is confident of his legal position should not fear answering questions about it, he should relish the opportunity.
Wouldn't questioning a judge be a preliminary step in determining if impeachment was warranted?
No one accuses Thomas of tax evasion.
nnjhansen 1 month ago
@nnjhansen If you don't like a ruling, you can always get rid of that judge thru impeachment for 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. But you'll say, "What is that?" That's why there's a majority vote in the House and a 2/3rds vote in the Senate to remove him or her to provide at least some justification. Just look at the few House Dems who are trying to impeach Clarence Thomas for his alleged tax evasion before he makes his ruling on Obamacare.
unknownunknowns 1 month ago
@unknownunknowns
clarence thomas actually does nothing at all
celph414 1 month ago
@celph414 Except issue opinions based on an actual reading of the Constitution.
nnjhansen 1 month ago
@celph414 And what does that supposed to mean?
unknownunknowns 1 month ago
Really nutty people get elected president if they have tons of SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY, cover for the BANKSTERS, learn how to lie professionally (BIG LIE TECHNIQUE) and move their loyalty (ALLEGIANCE) to ISRAEL. There have been some real losers moved into the office as president in the near past. It is about to happen again as the slick media hype once again confuses and deceives the electorate in America. Big money is about to trump liberty once again, as slick manipulators rig the elections
veniceit1 2 months ago
I bet if there were Muslim people trying to lead prayers in school the republicans would be waving the constitution and touting separation of church and state.
Where in the constitution is abortion and gay marriage banned
brently1437 2 months ago
@brently1437 The arguments made in the various court decisions that found a 'right' to abortion or same sex marriage were not premised on the Constitution failing to explicitly banning these activities but there being an affirmative right to them in the Constitution.
nnjhansen 2 months ago
@nnjhansen Generally when something is "premised", it indicates "past practice", or "precedent". Of which both topics, gay marriage and abortion, had absolutely none. Until only recently have individuals who have no respect for human life, and want to be able to destroy other life for the purpose of pure convenience.... or those who decided to eliminated 6000 years of past practice and tradition of marriage, pushed the judiciary to give a so-called "right" where one never existed.
PatriotCondor 2 months ago
New YouTube comment interface useless fail. Doesn't allow me to reply to people who responded to my comment. Am I suppose to scour the 100s of comments to find the person YouTube?
ddnguyen278 2 months ago
Wow! Gingrich says a lot of crazy, asinine things, but this may take the cake. At least, for now.
DTK5689 2 months ago
How is being forced before congress to be grilled for decisions made, not eliminating their power?
If you live in fear of a congressional inquisition, you will make decisions based on who controls congress. Congress would have the power, and you none.
Congress is already full of unethical turds, why give them more power?
Blairtim69 2 months ago 2
@Blairtim69 What makes you think the ethical make up of the federal judiciary is any better than that of the Congress?
Answering questions does not cause you to lose power. You may be forced to examine your rulings more closely if you know you will be publicly questioned but that is a good thing.
You seem to think judges should answer to no one. Are they immune to over stepping their power?
nnjhansen 2 months ago
@nnjhansen
What is the point of answering questions, if there are no consequences? Consequences will affect their decisions.
Do you want a liberal congress to call all the conservative judges in for questioning, I sure don’t want a conservative congress questioning liberal judges, I only see patrician chaos with this plan.
If people don’t like decisions, they can appeal, judges answer to their superior courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court.
Blairtim69 2 months ago
@Blairtim69 Of course there may be consequences. If they cannot justify and defend their decisions they will be properly humiliated publicly and if their behavior is egregious enough they may warrant impeachment.
I have no problem with a liberal Congress calling a conservative judge before it. Conservative judges tend to base their opinions on what is actually in the Constitution rather than what they wish was there.
I can understand why you would not want liberal judges questioned
nnjhansen 2 months ago
@nnjhansen
I disagree. Liberal judges base their decisions on the constitution, while conservative judges base it on what they wish was there.
A liberal congress would agree. Do you see the problem with the plan now?
A liberal congress will be driving out conservative judges and vise verses.
The Iowa judges decided to allow gays the same liberty as straight folk, as the constitution demands.
The Supreme Court decided a corporation is a person. Obama then can freplace them
Blairtim69 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Blairtim69 Really? Where in the Constitution does one find a penumbra? Liberal judicial activists have made up a constitutional right to abortion out of whole cloth. They decided school prayer was magically prohibited despite the fact that it was permitted by every state legislature that ratified the applicable amendments.
Where does the Constitution demand marriage be redefined?
nnjhansen 2 months ago
@nnjhansen Then maybe you should be posting amendments into the constitution that agree with your philosophy.
unknownunknowns 1 month ago
All I have to say is that if this fucker is ever elected this country will become a dictatorship
XxemohorrorxX 2 months ago
You really should look at what the founding fathers had to say about the balances of power between the three branches of government and the history of judicial review before mocking Gingrich's opinions on these subjects. It demonstrates your ignorance of history and political theory when you so lightly dismiss valid positions without even considering if something went wrong somewhere along the way. Are you afraid of the airing of ideas before voters...or just playing your own game of politics?
WHhunt4 2 months ago
What an interesting vision for America.
We already have a shortage of judges, because the senate won’t approve of Obama’s nominations.
If we follow Gingrich’s idea, Obama could arrest all the judges he considers activists, and clean out all the conservative judges, then the republican President can do the same.
And when either nominates a judge they like, the senate can reject them.
We’ll run out of judges in no time.
Blairtim69 2 months ago
Gingrich = filth
rhabdoviridae 2 months ago
Someone needs to tell "Kaiser" Gingrich that we have laws in the US and you can't just "arrest" judges which you politically disagree with.. Sure it would make ruling a country alot easier if you could just put people in prison who disagree with your political views.. Works for small third world countries just fine..
ddnguyen278 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@ddnguyen278 Newt is not advocating arresting judges that he disagrees with. He advocates Congress calling judges before Congress to testify and explain the reasoning behind their decisions to the representatives of the American people. The only reason the Capitol Police or US Marshals entered the discussion is because Schieffer asked how he would enforce a congressional subpoena against a judge. His answer is the same way any other subpoena is enforced.
nnjhansen 2 months ago
@nnjhansen
The representatives should be brought before the judges, for accepting bribes from lobbyists, allowing lobbyists to write laws and for insider trading. The federal judges are to enforce the constitution, and make sure no laws violate the constitution, having them answer to congress, basically eliminates the third branch of government.
I understand conservatives hate liberty and justice, but Gingrich’s move is to obvious of an attack on the constitution.
Blairtim69 2 months ago
@Blairtim69 If the representatives accept bribes, they should be prosecuted but that is irrelevant to this discussion.
The role of the federal judge is to adjudicate disputes in law and equity. They may have to interpret the Constitution as part of that duty but they are not to amend it based on their own policy preferences
Please explain how having them explain their reasoning to Congress, just as executive branch officials do, 'basically eliminates' their branch of government.
nnjhansen 2 months ago
@nnjhansen
One of their main duties is to decide if a law violates the constitution, and if it does to strike it down.
Who decides what an “activist judge” is?
If we force them to answer to congress, then congress would have power over the judges, this would destroy the power structure of our government. We have a crisis in filling empty seats, how many judges are going to want congress second guessing their decisions based on the current wind direction.
Hs plan is horrific.
Blairtim69 2 months ago
@Blairtim69 How does answering questions and defending your argument result in you losing power? Such is the case only if you cannot defend your argument. Why should judges not be worried about being second guessed? Members of every other branch of government are.
It comes down to who you believe should ultimately decide what the Constitution means. The first three words of my copy of the Constitution are not, "We the Judges."
nnjhansen 2 months ago
@nnjhansen
The separation of powers is important part of how the government works. Otherwise a liberal congress will be calling conservative judges, and vise verses. It would disrupt the duties of judges, by putting them through patrician witch trials.
I would be happy if all the activist conservative judges were gone.
Article 1 and article 3 of the constitution states the responsibilities of the judicial branch, judges are to decide if laws passed are constitutional.
Blairtim69 2 months ago
@Blairtim69 If separation of powers is a concern, why is it appropriate for executive branch officials to be called before Congress?
Are you arguing that their duties are not disrupted by such testimony?
Article 3 sets out the duties of the Judicial branch, nowhere does it state that 'judges are to decide if laws passed are constitutional.' In fact, Art 3, Section 2 limits the courts' jurisdictions to 'with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
nnjhansen 2 months ago
@nnjhansen
Judicial is chosen by executive and approved by the senate; also judges can have their decisions appealed.
Marbury v. Madison,(1803) formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.
I would love to see Obama start calling activist judges before congress, and have them eliminated for their conservative stand, but it would place the judicial branch even more into partisan politics than they are already.
Blairtim69 2 months ago
@Blairtim69 OK, legislators are chosen by the people and the people can remove them at the next election. What is your point?
So, this power is one that the courts bestowed upon itself?
Obama cannot call anyone before Congress, that is the job of Congress. Impeaching a judge is also a congressional responsibility that the president has no role in.
nnjhansen 2 months ago
@nnjhansen Thier reasoning is usually well laid out in their decisions which is public record. If congresses' summons to the judges are ignored he would have to arrest them and drag them to congress. That is implied in any summons issuance. What happens if your local court summons you and you refuse to show up? IMO congress lacks this power and the judical branch will be the one to decide any cases brought against judges. How do you think that will turn out? Gingrich is nuts!
owensaruba 2 months ago
@owensaruba If their reasoning is sound, what is the problem with answering questions of a co-equal branch of government regarding it?
By what measure does Congress lack the power? Congress has the power to issue and enforce subpoenas. It does so all the time. It can also hold those who refuse to comply in contempt of Congress. The judiciary would not necessarily play any role. Remember, with the exception of the Supreme Court, the federal courts are a creation of Congress.
nnjhansen 2 months ago
@nnjhansen I have no problem with them voluntarily explaining themselves. To threaten arrest, expressly or implied,not because you think they made a bad decision but rather you, or your constituents, don't like that decision is just foolish. It has been rare that I have read a ruling that failed to provide clarity, whether I agreed with it or not. What if you had a case before the court and congress didn't like the favorable decision you got? Want them interfering? I don't!
owensaruba 2 months ago
@owensaruba Normally an invitation is extended to testify voluntarily first but Congress does have subpoena power and enforcing its subpoenas is part of that power.
I do not share your high opinion of most court decisions. I see no reason why a judge should be immune to the type of questioning bu Congress that lawyers are subject to at oral argument. If their argument is sound, they can defend it.
I want a check on judicial power.
nnjhansen 2 months ago
@nnjhansen In several federal cases I have helped out on we have declined magistrate involvement and have recused judges that act in a biased manner. A judges "judicial immunity" is well defined and specific, they are not without limits! This is a duty of the lawyers, juries and appeals courts. The judiciary does have checks, the ones I listed and jury nullification. If Congress had this power why haven't they used it, ever? They will abuse it to suit their political ambitions.
owensaruba 2 months ago
@owensaruba Judicial immunity applies to civil litigation against a judge for official acts not from oversight by another branch of government.
Allowing higher courts to act as a check is not a check on the power of the courts. Jury nullification is not a check on judicial power at the appellate level.
If Congress were to abuse it, there is a check on their power as well. We the people can elect new members.
nnjhansen 2 months ago
Read the constituion, Newt is exact right !
Bostinlagga 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Where's Grover Norquist? The GOP House just RAISED TAXES for 160 million middle class Americans, effective January 1st.
Why does he show up when the millionaires get threatened with a tax raise but he never shows if it's the poor or middle class?
I thought the GOP House members signed some kind of pledge not to raise my taxes?
Looks like the GOP are a bunch of filthy liars, I guess.
I'm going to vote the liars out!
coltor9 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights given to Americans by government. Rather, the Bill of Rights provides a list of rights that are inherently ours, so they can’t be removed by the government. It is your duty as a voting member of society to understand this and NEVER vote for anyone who would breach the law. There are only 7 Senators who voted against NDAA. The rest must be replaced. nearly 2/3 of the House members also need to be replaced. Vote carefully RON PAUL 2012
possumpistol 2 months ago
This is what this country needs. Our Judges are OUT OF CONTROL!! With no consequences to their actions. I think some of them should be called in front of Congress on National TV, and explain to the country why they make some of the decisions they do. As soon as they need to explain themselves, you'd be amazed at how all of a sudden, these stupid Anti-American decisions will suddenly change.
PatriotCondor 2 months ago
@PatriotCondor
The reason Judges don't have responsibility to anyone is that it's the whole point of a judge. The second they have responsibility to anyone, worst of all the lawmakers, their objectivity is out of the window. When you disagree, you find a higher judge. Apart from being against the constitution of your country, you'd be killing the trias politica. They can do nothing but check, and you call that unlimitited power? The huge ability to say that something is against the law?
FireCannon27 2 months ago
@FireCannon27 That's ridiculous. Even Thomas Jefferson said, "That's Absurd!!! The Supreme Court is not Supreme. That would be an Oligarchy, and all our freedom would be lost."
That's why Jefferson himself abolished over a dozen judges while he was in office. They were assuming too much power. Judges NEED to be held accountable to someone for their actions. This is why we are having so many problems today. They are getting away with literally legislating from the bench.
PatriotCondor 2 months ago
@PatriotCondor Jefferson was wrong... The Judges are appointed and make decisions based on the constitution. Laws are passed by congress and interpreted by Judges. If the Judge is caught abusing powers, he can be impeached by the congress... not by President Newt! If you were a judge, you need some protection... protection from maybe a crazy president that may disagree with your decisions. This is the democratic process.
davejsmith 2 months ago
@davejsmith Newt didn't say the President should be able to just eliminate a judge. He did call for using the bully-pulpit to push Congress to do so, and be able to have them subpeona'd in order to publicly answer for their actions. This I agree with. He never at any point said the President alone should be able to impeach and remove judiciary. When reference is made to Jefferson eliminating Judges, he pushed Congress to impeach judges and eliminate districts.
PatriotCondor 2 months ago
@davejsmith Yes laws are interpretted by Judges. What Newt is referring to, is Judges who take laws that have been legally enacted by the states, and using their own assumed power, make them null and void to saitisfy their political agenda. Such as the marriage law in California.
Another is when you have Judges telling citizens what they can and can't say in reference to religion in a public place. That's rediculous. Those judges should be called and pushed to have Congress impeach them.
PatriotCondor 2 months ago
@PatriotCondor I agree that any personal interests should be investigated. If the judge is found to have any personal benefit or gain then that Judge should be impeached.
I hope these judges are being honest, because there job is trusted... the most trusted.
davejsmith 2 months ago
@PatriotCondor So when you do not like a decision made by an independent body, you know one of those things that set us apart from say, Iran. You get rid of them and a few years later, off we go to stand before Emperor Gingrich. What a brilliant step back in time. I know with all the real problems, like Jobs, Housing and war, this getting rid of judges, is a better way to spend time on a campaign for the new King of the USA
space4099 1 month ago
@chimera1591 Thank you for the compliment that I made about Gingrich.
MrBigfan007 2 months ago
I heard that DER FUHRER Gingrich popularity is dropping in the polls, let's hope he goes the way of the "Pizza man" Herman Cain.
MrBigfan007 2 months ago
This is exactly what Andrew Jackson did.
intercipio 2 months ago in playlist The Young Turks Show December 19, 2011
Newt Gingrich: Officially the Palpatine of the republican candidates.
objectionablechione 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
executive branch was given too much power in the last 2 decades. Now the branch is trying to hobble the other 2 branches ability to check and balance it. Slippery slope to a dictatorship. All hail Senator Palpatine.
AndrzejWLipski 2 months ago
@AndrzejWLipski You spelled Lieberman wrong.
TTEchidna 2 months ago
It was only a matter of time before the real Gingrich showed up.
army2k08 2 months ago in playlist More videos from TheYoungTurks
Newt Gingrich is the Tim Taylor of government: MORE POWER, HAR HAR HAR!
schlafanzyk 2 months ago
"Who needs Iowa? It's all fat fucks and corn" - Bill Maher
R4t10n4L 2 months ago
Newt is a danger to America!!
acheybrenda 2 months ago
If anyone needs to do any explaining, it should be someone explaining why this dumb fuck is a potential nominee. GTFOff my screen Gingrich. Don't come back.
achooboom 2 months ago 15
@achooboom Look at those jowls. those FUCKING JOWLS!!
ZarakiZamusha 2 months ago
And this is the guy republicans want in office? >_>
biggydx 2 months ago in playlist More videos from TheYoungTurks
He's kinda like Stalin, show trails and all....
enigma1990 2 months ago
Newt's position essentially destroys the United States of America. Period. This all goes back to the numbing and dumbing down of the country by poor education and the exploitation of that fact by FOX NEWS.
KHMWTV 2 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@KHMWTV few questions...
1. Why would congressional oversight for judicial decisions be substantively different than such oversight for executive decisions? Executive branch officials appear before Congress to explain their decision regularly.
2. Why would it be inappropriate for the Capitol Police or US Marshals to enforce a congressional subpoena against a federal judge if those agencies are used to enforce them against others?
nnjhansen 2 months ago
I'm actually with Newt on this one. How about we start with impeaching the judges who voted in favor of Citizens United?
Asher8328 2 months ago
If you have noticed lately that both the Democratic party and the Republican party are trying their best to turn this country into a dictatorship.... Revolution is coming
gekapat 2 months ago
A free citizen voting for Newt Gingrich is like a swine voting for a butcher.
taxiuniversum 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos 22
That's a dangerous position for Newt. Dangerous for our country and our constitution. Also, dangerous for Newt.
LilWyble225 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LilWyble225 Why is it dangerous for judges to be accountable for their decisions?
nnjhansen 2 months ago
@nnjhansen
it's dangerous because it would effectively weaken the judiciary to the point that they'd be unable to actually do their jobs without having to worry about some member of the religious right hauling them before congress to explain why they ruled in favor of gay marriage or overturned anti-abortion laws that violate women's rights to do what they see fit with their bodies because the religious right is made up of selfish sociopathic busybodies.
Hammerhead547 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hammerhead547 I ask again, why should they not have to explain their decisions to the elected representatives of the American people?
Executive branch officials are called to explain their decisions before Congress on a regular basis. Why are judicial branch officials immune?
If their decisions re marriage and abortion have an actual constitutional basis, what is the problem?
nnjhansen 2 months ago
Just when you thought Newt wouldn't be able to top Obama at trying to be a dictator after the NDAA stuff.
richardshort2001 2 months ago
It's time for the American people to start Laying Waste.
CrisKG125 2 months ago
This guy . . . he Really is a historian, imitating dictators who started out as elected leaders, like from the Mexican revolution and Xinhai revolution.
ttzz2003 2 months ago 2
"Fidel Gingrich"
sargetech 2 months ago
Trust Gingrich to steal a Ron Paul position xD
niriop 2 months ago
Ewww he's despicable.
tph2010 2 months ago
cont'd
3. Given that Gingrich was speaking specifically of court decisions that limited a president's Article II powers, why is one branch of gov't required to accept the limits placed on its enumerated powers by another co-equal branch of government? Lincoln did not accept the Court's Dred Scott decision as binding on his executive branch powers. No president has accepted the limits the War Powers Act places on the president's power as commander in chief.
nnjhansen 2 months ago
A few questions...
1. Why would congressional oversight for judicial decisions be substantively different than such oversight for executive decisions? Executive branch officials appear before Congress to explain their decision regularly.
2. Why would it be inappropriate for the Capitol Police or US Marshals to enforce a congressional subpoena against a federal judge if those agencies are used to enforce them against others?
nnjhansen 2 months ago
@nnjhansen as the weakest of 3 branches they get this protection for their decisions giving them an appropriate protection from political witch hunts and such. They can be arrested for criminal activity like that teens for cash scandal
BushidoBrownSama 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BushidoBrownSama Please explain how it is the weakest branch if it is immune to any real check or balance on its power? The courts have engaged in de facto amending of the constitution for decades, leaving the people and their elected representatives with little real recourse to rectify the situation. If this deference was appropriate when courts acted as the weakest branch, it is not longer so.
nnjhansen 2 months ago
@nnjhansen The Executive and Legislative branches are elected officials. But the Judicial branch is made up of officials appointed by the Executive branch with the consent and advice of the Legislative branch. How much more control over the judges do you want the President and Congress to have? We also need a branch that isn't subject to a constant popularity contest. Our current system has worked pretty well for the past 222 years and I don't see any real need to change it.
icemachine79 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@icemachine79 The President and Congress have no control over the judiciary once the judges are confirmed, that is the crux of the problem. There is no substantive check on the power of the courts to run roughshod over the Constitution. We all accept that occasionally the President or Congress may exceed its constitutional authority and we count on another branch or the people to correct it. No such correction is possible with the courts as the situation exists today.
nnjhansen 2 months ago
@icemachine79 I agree... the broken area of government is congress and presidential powers.
davejsmith 2 months ago
Despotism FTW!
AngeCord 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Cenk, when someone tells you what you can or can not put in your body....you're already living in a communist state..there are several more examples if you like.. like you can protest....but not here....when they tell us where we can or cannot protest, were already in a communist state...
odom602 2 months ago
Psychopathy: (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) is a personality disorder characterized primarily by a lack of empathy and remorse, shallow emotions, egocentricity, and deceptiveness.
A man who served his wife divorce paper while she was fighting cancer in the hospital.
Gingrich is a true psychopath.
How everyone can not see it plain as day, is beyond me!
People actually support this guy?
TruthAndMoreTruth 2 months ago 2
Gingrich, a 15 years old kid in middle school knows there are three branch of government!!!
mrsimoncrow 2 months ago
Gingrich's new slogan: "UNLIMITED POWER!!"
Trancelotics 2 months ago 50
@Trancelotics catchy!
Erilis666 2 months ago
@Trancelotics
And his by line is... "NO HOPE"
Leadman1989 2 months ago
@Trancelotics Followed by "Every. Single. Liberal. Is now an ENEMY of the Republic!"
TransHero 2 months ago
@Trancelotics Well, that's the only way a miniscule minority can rule..
blechtic 2 months ago
It's not surprising. Bush was, and still is free, and so is Cheney. Both of them should be prosecuted under CURRENT US law. What do you expect? if they did it, it must be acceptable.
pbezunartea 2 months ago
@pbezunartea Which law would you like to see them prosecuted under?
nnjhansen 2 months ago
Comment removed
dalailama65 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Also, look up Narcissistic Personality Disorder and tell me you don't see Gingrich in every one of those symptoms.
Kibouchan4 2 months ago in playlist More videos from TheYoungTurks
@Kibouchan4 "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" Oh awesome, that's one of those nice euphemisms people throw out there to make up for someone's problems. Back in the day that one was called "Evil Asshole".
Yesiamblind 2 months ago
i cannot believe how straight-faced Newt is about the things he says. He could not be more shielded from real life and how normal people live. He is so far in his bubble he can't see out
beatlegreg07 2 months ago
Look Cenk, you have to understand New Gingrich and put yourself in his postion. If I was him I'd be pissed off at certain people and be supremely evil everyday too. And on top of that he probably has an insanely small penis as most people with power have because they need to have a career like that to make up for their physical shortcomings. He looks like a cartoon villain and has a phallus deficit. It's not rocket science. He's pretty much a cliché. Poor Newt.
Yesiamblind 2 months ago
So here comes this asshole again. I think that this may be necessary in order to stop all of these fucking activist judges. They often push forward an agenda, which is meant to do nothing but advance the dumbass liberal cause. These liberal assholes want judges who want to rule that somehow welfare is constitutional, as in that is actually want the constitution says. The danger here isn't Gingrich, it's Cenk trying to promote his fascist agenda through Wolf-PAC and through the courts.
jatt5at 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I love how he didn't even try to deny that he would do this to judges solely based on his disagreement with them on the issue. Not fascism. Nope.
Kibouchan4 2 months ago in playlist More videos from TheYoungTurks
how can gay marriages ever be declared constitutional? anyone actually thinks founding fathers wanted to give gays these rights? only activist liberal judges are so depraved! newt has a good point. there are provisions in the constitution dealing with judges who over step
genie0390 2 months ago
whoa Newt Gingrich would be a good Hitler type president
Melpheos1er 2 months ago
I'm not worried, He'll going to jail and get rape before seeing the gas chamber for treason.
pistolpete1st 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@pistolpete1st In America him going to jail? Are you retarded?
The death penalty and getting raped are two things that arent cool.
Oldcartoons571 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The GOP votes for TAX CUTS for all billionaires and then VOTES NO for TAX CUTS for the middle class worker.
It's time to throw every member in the GOP to the unemployment line so they can show their GED and take a pee test to collect their unemployment check.
coltor9 2 months ago
America will be bankrupt and in open revolt in just a few years...
leegeorgeson 2 months ago
Maybe Newt's not actually running, maybe he's just a gigantic troll.
MrCrazyCanuk 2 months ago
The sad part is if any Democratic Presidential candidate said the exact same thing, Newt Gingrich would call him a Communist/Fascist/Marxist/Socialist dictator.
Sending U.S. Marshals to arrest judges? SMH.
kupigana 2 months ago in playlist More videos from TheYoungTurks
This makes me feel great about being gay.
LittleMissAmbiguous 2 months ago
Are any of the candidates not Christian, or white? Besides Obama. It seems kind of unfair.
SuperGreenSmartie 2 months ago
Mit is a mormon, so there you go. Who does "it" seem unfair too? The majority of the nation is white and christian so of course most candidates are white and christian. Here is a shocker for you most Prime Ministers in Europe are white and Christian.
Plato86 2 months ago
@Plato86 By "it" I mean the fact that you just pointed out. Why do old, white, christian men seem to be the politicians of countries so often. we rarely see people who vary from that group in any way. True, there are a few, like mitt, obama or michelle, but the vary only slightly from that group. So why is it we get old white christian guys as the people who are meant to represent the public the majority of the time. Their group can't possibly be the majority of the population.
SuperGreenSmartie 2 months ago
It depends what countries you are talking about. Old white christian men are not the majority of politicians in Africa, Asia or the Middle East. However in the Europe and the Americas old white christian men are not the majority, technically christian white women are the majority in the West, but are the most active when it comes to politics. We white men are at the head of the power structure in the West and like any other group we tend to vote for people who look like us.
Plato86 2 months ago
@Plato86 That's true. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a little more variety in the West when it comes to politicians? Variation in my opinion, would make a better government.
SuperGreenSmartie 2 months ago
@SuperGreenSmartie Why would variation in age, race, or sex make any difference in the quality of government?
nnjhansen 2 months ago
@nnjhansen More opinions. If the majority of people in government have a similar background (i.e, white christian males) they are more likely to make decisions in favour of that group. If we get more groups in government from various backgrounds, they will likely do a better job representing and making decisions for the people, as they are meant to do. We can still have a few old, white christian men, but seeing how they are doing as the majority now, some variety would be welcome.
SuperGreenSmartie 2 months ago 28
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperGreenSmartie We elect our representatives on the basis on location, legislative districts, states, etc... Are you saying that a white, Christian man from Fort Smith, Arkansas has more in common with a white, Christian man from LA than he does with the black woman who lives next door to him or that the man in LA has more in common with the man in AR than the Jewish man he grew up with?
The idea that political opinions are based on sex, religion, and color is antithetical to American ideals.
nnjhansen 2 months ago
@Plato86 I mean, surely old white christian men aren't the only people who run for office?
SuperGreenSmartie 2 months ago
I just realized that I agree with New. In fact, I'll go him one better. I think that anytime that an act of government comes under constitutional review, the instigators should have to come before the court and explain themselves.For example,if the Congress were to pass a law requiring the Bible to be used as a science text book, everybody who voted for it should come before the the various courts to explain themselves (no lawyer proxies). Throw in the President as well. It seems only fair.
jufulu 2 months ago
Comment removed
jufulu 2 months ago
I think "marshal" has one "s".
YawnGod 2 months ago
hahaha food reflection on tv screen in background :D:D:D
JanKPiano 2 months ago in playlist More videos from TheYoungTurks
This has been flagged as spam show
The GOP votes for TAX CUTS for all billionaires and then VOTES NO for TAX CUTS for the middle class worker.
It's time to throw every member in the GOP to the unemployment line so they can show their GED and take a pee test to collect their unemployment check.
coltor9 2 months ago
Newt wants America to be his own little North Korea.
harrysadlermusic 2 months ago
not sure how to say this but your lunch can be seen in the reflection on the tv
somekindofawesome1 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
If the founding fathers were here, REVOLUTION! Im not kidding at all, death to people like Gingrich. It is our constitutional obligation.
dudesonman4200 2 months ago
Maybe Newt never saw School House Rock and has no concept of checks and balances?
Bullshotinbutt 2 months ago in playlist The Young Turks Show December 19, 2011
@coltor9 Ever heard of Ron Paul?
kyoukan91 2 months ago
Palin is a joke. The entire GOP is a joke . They all are for the same failed economic policies of Bush. They only represent less personal freedom and millionaires. Not the poor or middle class
coltor9 2 months ago
Newt Gingrich is TRULY Sarah Palin's DICKLESS and BALLESS BITCH and PUSSY! Palin is VASTLY SUPERIOR to this ass-clown in every single way! Palin PWNS this RINO goofball and she will EXPOSE HIS PUSSY for the whole world to see!
ecwaufisxtreme 2 months ago
The entire GOP has now become a DICTATORSHIP bent on destroying America, the middle class, the infrastructure, education, science, and the poor.
coltor9 2 months ago
@coltor9
This is WHY we need Sarah Palin as POTUS! She will DESTROY the DEMS and the GOP and save the country!
ecwaufisxtreme 2 months ago
@coltor9 Bah, we just have to bomb the bible belt a little to remind them who the boss is.
DickCheneyXX 2 months ago
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier."
That day is ahead of you.
Tounushi 2 months ago
Is he related to Kim Jong il? His policies sound familiar!
Wordavee1 2 months ago