From an NYT article that I read yesterday:
Gov. Rick Perry of Texas favors term limits for Supreme Court justices. Representatives Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Ron Paul of Texas say they would forbid the court from deciding cases concerning same-sex marriage. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania want to abolish the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, calling it a “rogue” court that is “consistently radical.”
Criticism of “activist judges” and of particular Supreme Court decisions has long been a staple of political campaigns. But the new attacks, coming from most of the Republican candidates, are raising broader questions about how the legal system might be reshaped if one of them is elected to the White House next year.
Well… yeah… I suppose this rhetoric does raise questions about how the legal system might be reformed should these candidates be elected. But there’s another question that the lede of this piece begs. Newt Gingrich says the Ninth Circuit appeals court is “rouge” and “consistently radical.”
Is that true? Or are those rulings merely ones that Gingrich does not like? I suspect the latter, but, of course, I don’t actually know. This is the first quesiton that popped into my head as I read the article, not whether the tea leaf readers at the Times can predict what Republicans might do if they get elected. I would’ve liked the Times to investigate that particular claim.