Newt Gingrich may have won the South Carolina primary yesterday. Newt Gingrich may say things about the media that need to be said now and then. And Newt Gingrich may have positions on certain issues that appeal to conservatives. But Newt Gingrich is not a conservative.
On January 12, 2012, I talked about President Obama’s “recess” appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the NLRB, and I criticized Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page for missing the importance of process in what President Obama was doing:
“But the key to our democracy, and to the protection of our democracy, is not getting policy right but following proper and agreed-upon processes and procedures.
… Our liberties are protected by making sure those who govern us follow the processes and procedures that have been established for running our government.”
Respecting process in government and understanding that the means are important than the ends is one of the ultimate conservative positions. It is, in my opinion, one of the key differences between conservatives and liberals.
I strongly criticized President Obama when, two years ago, he took the occasion of a State of the Union address to criticize the Supreme Court for its decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The President directly attacked the justices of the Supreme Court, with congressional Democrats standing and cheering all around them. It was almost as if the President was trying to physically intimidate the Supreme Court. It was a terrible abuse of the State of the Union address and a disrespect for proper process in our constitutional system.
Which brings me to Newt Gingrich. In December Mr. Gingrich said that, if Congress doesn’t like a decision that a court makes, Congress could subpoena the judge to testify before Congress to explain the decision and that, if the judge did not want to come, the Capitol police or a federal marshal could be sent to force him or her to appear.
Mr. Gingrich also said that, if the Supreme Court made a decision the President did not like, the President could just ignore it. And that courts which make decisions that are unacceptable could be abolished. Mr. Gingrich tries to claim there is historical precedent for this last idea, saying that Thomas Jefferson did it in 1802. Except that what President Jefferson did was to abolish courts that had been established in the last few days of the John Adams administration (the famous “midnight judges”) and to do it before they decided any cases. He did not abolish courts because he disapproved of specific decisions.
Mr. Gingrich’s comments about subpoenaing judges, ignoring decisions of the Supreme Court and abolishing courts are not those of a conservative, of somebody who respects the Constitution and who understands how all the parts of it work together to protect our liberties.
The Constitution provides for three branches of government, each with a specific role to play in our government. Clearly, there are judges who make bad decisions and there are courts who overstep their proper role. But the way to respond is by following the Constitution, not ripping it up. If we want to preserve our liberties and protect our freedom, there are procedures to follow and processes to respect. Conservatives understand that. Newt Gingrich doesn’t seem to. Which means Newt Gingrich is not a conservative.
Comments