For the record, I still do not believe that Evangelical Christians should give a serial adulterer serious consideration for President of the United States. If you take issue with that declaration, then you need to re-evaluate your judgment on William Jefferson Clinton’s moral authority to successfully lead our nation during his time in the Oval Office. And, while Newt Gingrich may have repented of his sins and been forgiven by God for his transgressions (God’s grace knows no boundaries when it comes to our sin), that does not mean that he should be given a pass in the current Presidential sweepstakes. After all, the Bible clearly tells us that those who commit adultery are utter fools whose shame will never be erased (see Proverbs 6:32-33).
Added to Gingrich’s past tom-foolery is his present folly regarding judges and the Constitution. Feeding red meat to a small, but vocal minority of the Republican Party, all in the hopes of trying to win the nomination, Gingrich has once again revealed an arrogance unbecoming in a political leader and in the process has shattered his image of the world’s smartest politician. For a man who fancies himself a Constitutional scholar, Mr. Gingrich has uttered inane and foolish comments that would give John Cusack a run for his money. On CBS’s Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer asked Gingrich about the practicality of bringing federal judges before Congress because of disagreements with “radical” judicial rulings. Doubling down on his earlier statements about hauling activist judges before Congress, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives had this troubling exchange with Schieffer:
SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you this and we’ll talk about enforcing it, because one of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, the congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before congress and hold a congressional hearing. Some people say that’s unconstitutional. But I’ll let that go for a minute. I just want to ask you from a practical standpoint, how would you enforce that? Would you send the capital police down to arrest him?
GINGRICH: If you had to.
SCHIEFFER: You would?
GINGRICH: Or you instruct the Justice Department to send the U.S. Marshal. Let’s take the case of Judge Biery. I think he should be asked to explain a position that radical. How could he say he’s going to jail the superintendent over the word “benediction” and “invocation”? Because before you could — because I would then encourage impeachment, but before you move to impeach him you’d like to know why he said it.
You have got to be kidding. This cannot possibly be a rational — not to mention conservative — stance of one of the leading candidates for the Republican Presidential nomination, can it? As a former lawyer and conservative, I am both perplexed and appalled by Gingrich’s transparent attempt to win over “conservatives” that make up the base of the Republican Party. However, no true conservative — no matter how much we might loathe the liberal judicial activism that has permeated the federal bench — could possibly accept Gingrich’s position as viable. If you find yourself agreeing with Gingrich, ask yourself if you would approve of President Obama sending the U.S. Marshalls to bring in a “wayward” conservative jurist who ruled that the new Health Care Law was unconstitutional. Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey categorized Gingrich’s views as “dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off-the-wall and would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle.”
I agree with Mr. Mukasey and others, including conservative columnist George Will, that Gingrich’s position on judicial activism is downright nutty (my word, not theirs). How else to explain Newt’s equating the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “Under God” decision with the infamous Dred Scott decision in the lead-up to the Civil War:
That decision to me had the same effect that the Dred Scott decision extending slavery to the whole country had on Abraham Lincoln.”
To believe that is to be on the same level of liberal lunacy that equates American politicians with Hitler and the Nazis. I’m fairly certain that the 9th Circuit’s opinion (subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court) did not result in one death, much less 625,000 deaths suffered in four years of fighting between the North and the South.
Many labels have been used to describe one Newt Gingrich — brilliant scholar, master political tactician, leading Presidential contender. But, with each interview and debate, it cannot be denied that Mr. Gingrich, for all his self-professed intellect, comes across more and more like a fool. The label that resonates with the American people — particularly Republican Primary voters — will determine Newt Gingrich’s future. Each time he opens his mouth, Mr. Gingrich seems well on his way to removing all doubt as to the final label that will attach to the man and the politician.