The American Spectator

Interested Conservative| 12.22.11 @ 10:58AM

Will's wife works for Rick Perry.

Clint| 12.22.11 @ 3:08PM

George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"

William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Robert17| 12.22.11 @ 7:09PM

Some people, including George Will, are unable to distinguish between the Iraq war and some neocon Democracy Project run amok. The Paulites would have you believe that its one or the other....either you are non interventionist or imperialist. Nonsense. The true conservative knows when to break the rules....we believe in principles, not rules. The last time I checked, we did encourage democracy all over Eastern Europe, Central America and Asia during the Cold War...which Buckley supported. And we did build a nation called Japan. Will put forth false premises, and Buckley let him.

Simon Templar| 12.22.11 @ 11:06AM

George Will is incapable of eviscerating anyone on anything, in fact they, Will and eviscerating are oxymorons. This is a guy incapable of calling Obama a socialist but trys in his lame way to imply that Gingrich is one.

You are making something out of nothing here and as usual are trying to support the status quo.
You are also cherry picking history to suit your argument and ignoring the rest. Gingrich for better or worse is an historical expert on the subject and can site ten to your one that it has been done and it is within the constitutional framework. He made it clear that all he was doing is stating that we do in fact have more ability to rebalance the powers than you would like us to believe. So stop trying to invent the idea that he is going to set up executive trials and tribunals of supreme court judges and judicial officials.
The supreme court is not above the constitution or accountability.

Oldefarte| 12.22.11 @ 11:19AM

ST, I mostly agree with your always intelligent analysis, and i think possibly Newt was simply throwing out a political bomb of sorts to attempt to wake up America through its outlandishness. Lawyers/attorneys or politicians with law degrees control every state legislature including the federal DC one, and their grip upon power will not allow New't argument to come to fruition sadly. We the people can though over time change this legislative control-grip of power through the election process to replace same with legislators with business or other non-law backgrounds [and therein lies the solution]. As the old joke goes, HOW CAN YOU TELL WHEN A LAWYER IS LYING? A. WHEN HIS LIPS ARE MOVING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bob K.| 12.22.11 @ 11:47AM

Everyone knows that Lawyers, whose numbers have increased exponentially over the last 50 years, are a major cause of the increasing instability of our society ,not to mention the constant threats to our freedoms, yet the Lawyers who defend us from these lawyer created depredations belong to the same guild (Call it a UNION if you want!) as the first group, as did the Judges before their elevation to the bench!

Can anyone think of a better example of a "stacked deck?"

There is not be much discussion of this in the Media because of all the advertising the Tort Law segment of the legal "profession" purchases from them.

But there must soon become some kind of control of admission to membership in this closed society and methods must be designed similar to those in England that separate the "solicitors" from the "barristers" and then further separate the "judges" from them.

If not, our future as a nation and world leader will be bleak!

Perhaps the only answer is the Imperial Presidency which Gingrich alludes to. But let us hope not.

SpiralArchitect| 12.22.11 @ 2:46PM

Give Quinnn a break, he produced a blog post that made no mention of Newt. Really.

Ideas are a waste if they cannot be carried out to the letter of their orginal decree?

Oh, now I get it, thanks again, Quinnn

Bob K.| 12.22.11 @ 6:43PM

Actually I was responding to Oldefarte's comment but Quin can pick it up from there and run with it if he wants to.

Bob K.| 12.22.11 @ 11:14AM

Senators and Representatives want the perks, prestige and salaries that go with their offices but not the responsibilities.

This is a result of "Democracy" in action as it is interpreted by the people we elect who view it, as the historian John Lukacs observed: not as government "of the people, by the people and for the people" but really as "government in the name of the people."

They always justify the new regulations which they never read before they vote for them and which they give over to an anonymous bureaucracy to enforce by saying that they did it for "the american people" or better yet for the "children" or "for our aging" or for "the poor and homeless!"

That is why our Presidency has been becoming more and more like a Monarchy!

Ed| 12.22.11 @ 11:16AM

This is topsy turvy time, remember. Romney, who gave us obamacare, is a conservative while Gingrich, who brought us welfare reform and balanced budgets, is a statist.

WL| 12.22.11 @ 11:53AM

Great Comment Ed...

We allow ourselves to get caught up in the food fight...but always seem to forget the concrete accomplishments that are actually made...

WL| 12.22.11 @ 11:57AM

Hey Hillyer....

Still out there hawking for Mitt huh?

I love the "unconservative" mention of "among most respected conservative analysts"... blurb...

It is only second to our President's "most leading economists"..."all respected economists" etc etc etc...

How about talking about what YOU and MITT think we should do...

Seems that your Mittster doesn't want to take his hour to "eviscerate" Newt one on one does he?

Ed| 12.22.11 @ 12:27PM

Perhaps, if one is a mitt advocate, one could point out his conservative accomplishments while in a position of power?

WL| 12.22.11 @ 12:34PM

There aren't any.

Bumr50| 12.22.11 @ 12:42PM

Still NEVER voting for Mittens.

Maxwell| 12.22.11 @ 3:18PM

I agree but what do I know, I'm just a grunt that loves his guns.

Wayne| 12.22.11 @ 12:48PM

I really have grown weary of the Obama enablers like George Will. He does his best to make the man-child in the White House look competent and he works to eviscerate Obama's opponents. Will should just become a Democrat and be honest.

NVA Patriot| 12.22.11 @ 1:01PM

I would exchange an imperial President that I can bounce from office every 4 years over an imperial court that has a lifetime appointment and a historical track record of backing slavery and allowing the killing of between 30 and 50 million children in the womb.

We can hardly do worse.

Newt's rhetoric alone is probably causing second thoughts amongst many a judge and that's worth the price of admission...and as for being a quack - that would be Washington DC based pundrity.

Newt was Speaker of the House, balanced a budget, and left the proper historical mark on the Clinton Presidency - Impeachment - I'd say that makes him a great Doctor of Republican (not the political party) governance

PattyMor| 12.22.11 @ 1:51PM

Newt, for all his faults, gave us a Republican House for the the first time in 40 years, a balanced budget and welfare reform. Just what conservative thing has Mittens accomplished? Conservative judges, nope. Balanced budget, nope. He not only passed Romneycare, but also left the tax issue mainly for his successor. Talk is cheap, but actions speak louder.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.22.11 @ 2:00PM

NVA Patriot nailed it.

Newt threw the bomb to remind the courts we are not an oligarchy of judges and that there are solutions to them believing they are above the constitution.

Margie| 12.22.11 @ 5:56PM

Takes a bomb-thrower to know one, right, Ken?

WL| 12.22.11 @ 2:06PM

Extra Extra Extra.....

MITT SLITHERED AWAY FROM NEWT AND IS HIDING BEHIND THE OTHER CANDITATES BECAUSE HE CAN'T FACE Newt ALONE!!!

This is what we can expect from the Mittster when he are watching him against Obama...

2 Presidential elections in A ROW...

watching contenders who refuse to throw a punch for 15 rounds....

Yep...Obama is gonna get his second term.

Unless we can keep MITT at HOME!!!

Clint| 12.22.11 @ 2:20PM

Like Michele Bachmann said, " Newt-Romney Aren't True Conservatives."

We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Ruling Elite And Their Flunkie Stooges.
These Are The RINO-CINO'S , Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Oldefarte| 12.23.11 @ 10:51AM

%%%%AND THE COW JUMPED OVER THE MOON, WHILE THE DISH RAN AWAY WITH THE SPOON%%%%% [how bout that C&P job?]!!!!!!!

Margie| 12.24.11 @ 7:15PM

++++++And Jack & Jill ran up the hill to fetch a pail of water...!!!!+++++

Dan| 12.22.11 @ 2:49PM

The heavens will fall; the world will be rent in two and cast into an everlasting void; if ANY of us DARE, DARE to question the supremacy of our judicial overlords.

Our ENTIRE REPUBLIC will be shaken to its foundations if our elected representatives dare, DARE try to summon our judicial overlords to explain themselves before them.

Rinophobe| 12.22.11 @ 3:31PM

So Quin, now that we know you wouldn't have supported Thomas Jefferson's actions against the judiciary circa 1802, which presidential initiative would you support? Per your article, everyone else has failed to reign in the activist judiciary and now that a viable candidate with the fortitude to introduce a historically contextual proposition, you sound the retreat. I see no mention of any presidential effort to initiate the reforms that are so desperately needed to re-balance the judiciary, in Newt's terms, so one must therefore conclude that judicial restraint is precisely what you oppose, along with the rest of the punditry. If you and all the other conservative analysts and experts have failed to reach a solution for restraining judicial imperialism, why scold a president who may be able to assist you in reaching the success that has so eluded you? One essential element that has largely escaped the focus of many Americans is this: the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. Checks and balances, so far, aren't being done by any of the branches. One can possibly conclude that it's by agreement. Imagine that, a system of checks and balances where the only balance is the equal misuse of authority, which goes on and on, unchecked.
The judges have had their free reign long enough, and by any stretch, this President and Congress don't appear to have any kind of act to offer, let alone a balancing act.
I'd pay front seat admission just to see Newt take a stab at it. Why, it would be the best opening act in my lifetime, by any President.

David C| 12.22.11 @ 4:24PM

Gingrich's determination to stop the Imperial judiciary is what makes me support him the most.

If Will thinks Gingrich isn't being conservative in believing that presidents can refuse to enforce unconstitutitional rulings by the courts, then Will is an ass.

Occam's Tool| 12.22.11 @ 4:51PM

"Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Andrew Jackson

Edward Cropper| 12.22.11 @ 5:45PM

If a President decided not to enforce a Federal Court ruling, then let congress bring impeachment charges against him. If he is found guilty then he is found guilty. If he is acquitted the congress is saying they agree with him and the court is up a creek without a paddle.

Diogenes| 12.22.11 @ 5:45PM

As a constitutional scholar and historical expert, Will is certainly quite knowledgeable about baseball.

Margie| 12.22.11 @ 5:53PM

Ya know.. conventional Medicine isn't always what it's quacked up to be, anyway!

Margie| 12.22.11 @ 5:54PM

And sorry to say, but George Will sometimes reminds me of Peggy what's her name.. Noonan.

WM| 12.22.11 @ 7:22PM

I wonder how many of the so-called conservatives posting on this thread will be so gung-ho to impeach, harass, and limit the judicial branch when the SCOTUS throws out Obamacare? Anyone care to bet how outraged they will be when those "activist judges" rule the individual mandate unconstitutional and throw out the rest of the law? Think we'll hear a peep about how the Justices were supposed to allow the majority vote to stand?

This is not a democracy. This is a republic - a constitutional republic. This is not majority rule. You don't get to violate the rights of others just by forming a large enough gang and taking a vote. The judiciary is supposed to protect individual rights by blocking unconstitutional initiatives. The judiciary does not make the laws. It can at most only allow them to stand.

I am far more concerned with the executive branch and the derelect legislative branch, which seems to only take a break from passing Post Office renamings to enact private sector crushing laws like SARBOX, Dodd-Frank, and a smattering of other diktats on businesses.

WM| 12.22.11 @ 7:25PM

...when it is not finding excuses for why the government must continue spending more and more of the taxpayer's money.

Mike 3/505| 12.22.11 @ 7:27PM

"Gingrich's proposals, though, are, by common agreement among most respected conservative analysts, way out in left field."

The above may be true, but his proposals also have the benefit of a) being clearly supported by the Constitution, and b) used successfully by previous Congresses at the behest of previous Presidents.

The greatest benefit however, would be that the courts would have to answer for their decisions...just like the rest of the government should. Letting judges off the hook for this, is just a greater example of what we are doing throughout our society...divorcing action from accountability.

Regards,

Mike

Margie| 12.22.11 @ 8:57PM

Well said, Mike.
And a very Merry Christmas to you and yours!

Mike 3/505| 12.23.11 @ 9:04AM

And to you and yours Margie!

M

Steve| 12.22.11 @ 7:43PM

A small question, If Gingrich wins the nomination, how are people like George Will (A person I respect) going to walk these attacks back?

Robert17| 12.22.11 @ 9:52PM

They're not. They're gone vote for Obozo, like they did in 2008.

Chalkdust| 12.23.11 @ 6:51AM

I doubt that George Will voted for Obamanazi, it so happens that John McCain is his kind of Conservative. George Will is like most (all) pundits, he writes for the people that run in his Washington, DC cocktail party circuit. Where he could use phrases like "most respected conservatives" as a throw-away line and no-one would ask his him to name just one. George Will could eviscerate a dead squirrel.

Steve| 12.23.11 @ 10:02AM

Vote for "The One"? Oh I doubt that, but it should be interesting to watch, if Gingrich wins the nomination.

Tenn Slim| 12.23.11 @ 8:23AM

Newt, for a host of past reasons, not to mention the animosity he has engendered thru the years, toward the RHINO and GOP Good ole boys, is toast.
Ron Paul, bless his incoherent socks, may just be the Third Party catalyst that will toss the 2012 Election into the Supreme Court and the Congress.
May the Creator have mercy, that is, if the election is held at all.
Semper Fi

Oldefarte| 12.23.11 @ 10:57AM

Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Feingold, Kennedy ,McCain, Lieberman, Bush, etc ARE NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AND ARE NOT CAPABLE OF BEING ELECTED PRESIDENT IN NOVEMBER OF 2012, folks. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA is however!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 12.23.11 @ 10:59AM

PS: I left out George Will, who is also not running for president!!!!!!!!

antidote| 12.23.11 @ 12:39PM

The republican party is imploding before our eyes. The supreme hypocrites are facing their demons and the stark reality that they have courted too many extremists and cannot possibly cater to them all. Wait.........did you hear that.............sounds like a giant toilet flushing.............