"Face the Nation" transcript: December 18, 2011

(CBS News) 

Below is a rush transcript of "Face the Nation" on December 18, 2011, hosted by CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer. The guest is Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich.

Schieffer: And good morning again. Welcome to Face the Nation, Mr. Speaker. Did you get or did you see Christine O'Donnell's support.

Gingrich: No . You have great researchers. That's an amazing clip.

Schieffer: The Des Moines Register, this morning, endorsed Mitt Romney. I have to get your reaction.

Gingrich: Well I'm actually delighted because the Manchester Union Leader, which is a reliably conservative newspaper, endorsed me. The Des Moines Register, which is a solidly liberal newspaper, did not endorse me. I think that indicates who the conservative in this race is.

Schieffer: I want to talk to you a little bit about this whole business. You really turned up the heat on what you call activist judges. You talked about this the last time you were on Face the Nation and yesterday you had a telephone conference call with reporters because you want to put this out front and center. In fact, your folks said to me be sure and ask him about judges so I know this is something you want to talk about. Basically, what you said was, sometimes in the past, presidents have paid no attention to the Supreme Court when it issued a ruling and you said there might be times or there would be times now when a president should just ignore the Supreme Court. I'm not sure I understand how that works

Gingrich: Well, Bob, I think part of the advantage I have is that I'm not a lawyer. And so as historian, I look at the context of the judiciary and the constitution in terms of American history. The fact is, I'll just give you two examples -- Judge Biery's ruling on June 1st that he would jail the superintendent if anybody at the high school graduation used the word benediction, used the word invocation, asked for a moment of silence, asked the audience to stand, or mentioned God, he would jail the superintendent was such an anti-American dictatorship of speech that there's no reason the American people need to tolerate a federal judge who is that out of sync with an entire culture. So I have to ask the question, is there an alternative? What's the recourse? Well, one recourse is impeachment. The Supreme Court, in Boumediene...literally inserted the American civil liberties onto the battlefield. Now this is the opposite of World War II where Franklin Delano Roosevelt told the Supreme Court, through his attorney general, that the 14 German saboteurs that have been picked up in the U.S. would be tried by military tribunal and executed and that he would not tolerate a writ of habeas corpus as commander in chief. And so you have this real problem that since 1958, when the war in court asserted by itself, that the Supreme Court was supreme over the president and the congress, you've had a fundamental assault on our liberties by the courts, you have an increasingly arrogant judiciary, and the question is, is there anything we the American people can do? The standard conservative answer has been, well, eventually we'll appoint good judges. I think that's inadequate. The constitution promises a balance of the judicial branch, executive branch and legislative branch. The Federalist Papers say specifically the weakest of the three branches is the judiciary. Jefferson abolishes 18 out of 35 federal judges.

Schieffer: They'd just been created, though.

Gingrich: They'd just been created and they'd been appointed. And he abolishes them. Over half of all the judges. Jackson says of the court, they think the bank of the United States is constitutional, I don't think it's constitutional. Their opinion doesn't matter to me. I'm the president, they're over the judiciary, he vetoes it. Lincoln spends part of his first inaugural because people tend to forget, the Supreme Court in Dred Scott, ruled that slavery extended to the whole country. And Lincoln said very specifically, that's the law of the case that is not the law of the land. Nine people cannot create the law of the land or you have eliminated our freedom as a people.

Schieffer: Mr. Speaker, the old saying in legal circles is that the Supreme Court is not last because it's right, it's right because it's last. There comes a point where you have to accept things as the law of the land. How do you decide, how does the president decide what's a good law and I'm going to obey the Supreme Court or what's a bad law and I'm just going to ignore it?

Gingrich: I think it depends on the severity of the case. I'm not suggesting that the congress and the president review every decision. I'm suggesting that when there are decisions, using Boumediene as an example, in which they're literally risking putting civil liberty rules in battlefields, it's utterly irrational for the Supreme Court to take on its shoulders the defense of the United States. It's a violation of the constitution.

Schieffer: Brown vs. Board of Education was a very controversial decision. There were large number of people in the United States that didn't want to do that. Are you saying that should the president have been so disposed, he could have just ignored that?

Gingrich: I'm saying that in the case of Dred Scott, which was an equally important and terrible decision, remember the court's sometimes right, the court's sometimes wrong.

Schieffer: Well that was then, this is now.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page »

[scrappdaddy]

I just read an interesting article by Max Boot. It was on this very issue and talked about the unnecessary rulings of our judicial systems Gingrich speaks about during the first part of the interview. I wonder if there is a move to get rid of these types of judicial proceedings altogether. Max Boot is whats called a chicken hawk. He writes about the necessity of wars and specifically the way war can shape policy and influence nations around the world. Max has written several books on this subject and is for the deployment of our military to engage in these "good fights" having never served in the military himself. That's the chicken hawk in him. Willing to send our men and women to fight having not gone himself or willing to send his kids. Max is so good at writing these books, that he was offered and accepted a job with the Council on Foreign Relations. Max has a bright future ahead of him. Members of this organization include: Dick Cheney John Kerry Bill Clinton Al Gore Ronald Reagan George H. W. Bush Gerald Ford Richard Nixon John, David & Nelson Rockefeller Condolezza Rice Paul Wolfowitz Alan Greenspan Colon Powell Henry Kissinger and, Barack Obama Hillary Clinton John Edwards Chris Dodd Bill Richardson Mitt Romney Rudy Giuliani John McCain Fred Thompson Newt Gingrich among many others.

[scrappdaddy]

You know, I watched this guy Schieffer, try to rip apart Ron Paul a couple weeks ago. He was argumentative, interrupted, and demeaning. He never let Ron Paul finish an answer on one single topic he questioned him. Without exception, Schieffer cut him off and stopped him from finishing his answers. So I am watching this now, with Gingrich, and it is like looking at a teen aged girl in love with a boy. It is unbelievable. Where are the teeth that were so predominately displayed during the Paul interview? I thought Schieffer was actually going to bite him, I know I heard him growl at least twice (no kidding, listen for yourself). This guy (Gingrich) is the biggest target in the history of candidates! He has so much to answer foe. 87 ethics violations. $300,000 fine from ethics committee. First speaker in our history to have such in place. FORCED to resign! This guy wears red and white bulls-eyes on his clothes, and yet he is lobbed softballs my nephew could hit out of the park and he's not big enough to lift a bat. What is this country coming to when we, as citizen's, aren't screaming from the rooftops for real journalism. This "target" is being propped up as a front runner and not being held accountable for his past. I don't care about the wife thing(s). As a man it shows he lacks moral character (that has, in the past, bled into his professional life). But are people really considering this guy for President? Why? Because he's smart? Because he talks well? Because he knows some history? Obama has left himself wide open for not getting re-elected in 2012 and people are actually considering one of the worst people who's ever held office. This is a sad day in America.

[lahop2it]

I absolutely agree with Newt. I'm so happy that someone is taking up this problem. Our courts have run wild over our beliefs and have imposed their beliefs on us as absolute; many times crushing the rights of others to be able to worship openly. We have become a society of "political correctness," and the court has forgotten and suppressed our 1st Amendment rights. I decided I was no longer going to use politically correct language several years ago, and I dare someone to arrest me for it. Not one other candidate in recent history has proposed the idea of limiting the courts. I commend Newt, and I will openly campaign for him!

[LeonElledge]

Bob:
The concept Newt is speaking of is valid. The courts were, according to the founders, created to rule on laws and if they were seen in conflict with the constitution, to void them. It is the duty of congress to provide clairification. They have neglected to do so and left the court to rule alone.
As to your one year term plan: Perry has you beat. Part time jobs are better. then they would have time to go home and learn what people think. Of course we would need to make them subject to any laws or regulations the rest of us face.
Overall, I have to commend you on one of the best shows of the season. I must admit that I base that on how much the giuest is allowed to talk, not on how much time you are speaking once a question is asked. Merry Christmas !