On face value, this sounds really bad. But I agree and of course concur he is correct. Judicial activism is asinine in this country. Essentially, we have judges legislating from the bench. Their job is to uphold laws that are written by congress, and it’s clear, activist judges do not adhere to that principle. They have overstepped the boundaries and become too powerful, tipping the balance of power in their favor.

One clear-cut example that I’m sure we can all agree on is Eminent Domain. The next being ObamaCare if it is deemed legal.

This excerpt comes via the Los Angeles Times:

Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court decisions that conflicted with his powers as commander in chief, and he would press for impeaching judges or even abolishing certain courts if he disagreed with their rulings.

“I’m fed up with elitist judges” who seek to impose their “radically un-American” views, Gingrich said Saturday in a conference call with reporters.

In recent weeks, the Republican presidential contender has been telling conservative audiences he is determined to expose the myth of “judicial supremacy” and restrain judges to a more limited role in American government. “The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial and far too powerful,” he said in Thursday’s Iowa debate.

As a historian, Gingrich said he knows President Thomas Jefferson abolished some judgeships, and President Abraham Lincoln made clear he did not accept the Dred Scott decision denying that former slaves could be citizens.

Relying on those precedents, Gingrich said that if he were in the White House, he would not feel compelled to always follow the Supreme Court’s decisions on constitutional questions. As an example, he cited the court’s 5-4 decision in 2008 that prisoners held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had a right to challenge their detention before a judge.

“That was clearly an overreach by the court,” Gingrich said Saturday. The president as commander in chief has the power to control prisoners during wartime, making the court’s decision “null and void,” he said….

On his website, Gingrich spelled out his views on courts.

“While abolishing judgeships and lower federal courts is a blunt tool and one whose use is warranted only in the most extreme of circumstances … it is one of many possibilities to check and balance the judiciary,” he wrote. “Other constitutional options, including impeachment, are better suited” to check wayward judges.

“In very rare circumstances, the executive branch might choose to ignore a court decision,” he wrote.

Gingrich also said that as president he might ignore a Supreme Court ruling if it held gays and lesbians had the right to marry.

“The Constitution of the United States has absolutely nothing to say about a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Were the federal courts to recognize such a right, it would be completely without constitutional basis,” he wrote.

Like it or not, he’s right. The only way to change that is by constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

Some on the left might get all hyper about Gingrich’s comments, mainly because their funny agenda wouldn’t cut the mustard. Also, we have a sitting president that is currently ignoring rulings from the court. Offshore oil drilling comes to mind off the top of my head. And he also ignores the constitution when it gets in his way.

No, I’m not attempting to justify these comments with the “Two wrongs, I gotcha” argument, but as stated before, the courts are to uphold the laws that have been written, not to legislate and rewrite from the bench. If judge’s did their jobs we wouldn’t be having this conversation.