Newt Gingrich has, over the years, allowed his mouth to engage before he placed his brain in gear.
“Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing.” Edmund Burke.
His recent comments about hauling judges into congress, arresting judges who refused to respond to the “invite” to appear before congress and refusing to follow Supreme Court rulings with which he disagreed, are all simply a thoughtless extension of his and his supporters’ ideology.
There are rulings by courts and judges everyday that allow for plenty of room for disagreement. In not one of those rulings with which sound people may disagree would it be appropriate to jail the judge or haul her into a tribunal like congress for tongue lashings. That, however, is an ideology born from a group who believes they know best and, as a result, should be above the law and the constitution of this country.
Mr. Gingrich is an historical expert. He is fully schooled about the “separation of powers” included in the constitution. He should be sensitive to the need for the branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial) to maintain a balance of power through checks and balances. He should know that any judge may be removed for misfeasance or malfeasance through the impeachment process. He also knows that he President of the United States does not have the power to jail judges or to haul judges in before congress.
So, how can a man, a leader of his party, an historical expert, a former member of congress, make statements about simply ignoring the constitution?
Mr. Gingrich can make statements like he has because we live in a free country in which that freedom is guarded by the Constitution. The very document allowing Mr. Gingrich to set forth statements he knows to be simply untrue or inaccurate is the document he says he will simply ignore if elected to the office of President.
In a Democracy you can not have it both ways. We can not on one hand hold high a constitution that protects freedoms like free speech and on the other hand ignore those portions of the constitution that may be, well, inconvenient to a particular group.
What does this say about Mr. Gingrich? What does this say about the ideals of those behind Mr. Gingrich?