May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
Very few people have written as much on the issue of conservative judges over the past ten years than I have. So this is important to me. Gingrich is absolutely right to challenge judges. But as Kelly’s question indicated, his approach (on some fronts) does indeed “dangerously” alters the constitutional balance of power.
But Gingrich hit a home run with his answer. He sounded terrific. He’s good at debating. He doesn’t back down. And he’s great at the demagoguery, such as attacking “lawyers” while (again) portraying himself as a great historian. No, what he is, is a politician who is smart enough to sound like an academic when it does him good.
Meanwhile, Bachmann also did well when she chimed in on the question.
Ron Paul was right to reject Gingrich’s idea of subpoenaing judges before Congress. Dead right. He called it “a real affront to the separation of powers.” He knows the COnstitution better than Historian Newt does.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online