http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 5899.story

I've been over this on my Gregg Jackson thread, but a President can't legally do this, can he?

“Mr. Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”

OOOOOHHHH, he sounds so "Presidential"....

He's just being provocative as is his habit. He can't help but throw out bombs so the media will pay attention. But he's beginning to scare the right wingers with his extreme views like this one. He's thumbing his nose at the Constitution and the separation of powers.

If and when the SCOTUS finally rules on same-sex marriage, it will not be because it is mentioned specifically in the document itself which is setting forth basic principles and a framework. If the justices decide that the principle of equal treatment before the law means that the government cannot refuse to treat same sex couples differently than those in traditional marriage, that will be the law of the land. To decide otherwise, they would have to find a rational basis for denying that right. So far, none have been found. The states and the federal government will have no choice but to follow the decision.

So, what does he mean when he says he will ignore it or not follow it. Many governors and presidents have had to enforce court decisions they did not agree with. The president is not the one who makes the laws or who decides on their constitutionality. His job is to carry them out. Think of governors standing in doorways of universities as federal troops escorted students in after the schools were ordered to integrate.

Newt needs to go back to basic high school civics for a refresher course. If there is one thing that really scares people is this kind of wild talk which if carried out would bring a great deal of political instability to a nation trying to get on its feet again economically.
I hope some reporter asks Bill Clinton and the Bushes what they think of these statements. I would like to see the expression on their faces.

Unlike a few of his sub-cretin fellow Republican candidates, I don't think Newt's problem would be solved by a refresher course in civics. I think you got it right in the first place, namely:



What a nasty child he is. I can imagine Newt as the nerdy boy in 9th grade biology who relished the idea of pithing living frogs prior to dissecting them. And then grossing out the girls by waving guts around.

That's his electability problem, IMO: Everyone knows he's that nasty nerdy kid they didn't want to hang around with in junior high and, to this day, nobody wants to hang around with him.

Newt Gingrich sounds like the kind of person who would, say, shut down the Government because he felt a personal slight from something.

And when you look at how his current wife, Tiffany, gazes at him adoringly, almost ecstatically, when he gives a speech, it's obvious he married her because she agrees with everything he says (and she seems to think it originated first with her).

Well, yes, he did that as Speaker. But what if he felt a personal slight from a foreign leader and decided that he should be removed by any means at his disposal. What we see is someone who has no respect for anyone but himself and his egos.

I don't think Newt really wants the job of president. It's hard work and requires sacrifice. Newt is an idea man, mostly bad ones. He likes the attention and the influence and the money that comes his way. He is in no way a statesman.

Well, since the Constitution has absolutely nothing to say about a constitutional right to interracial marriage, that must mean President Gingrich is going to toss Loving v. Virginia?

Newt Kingrich?

Maybe Newt thinks he can add a signing statement to a SCOTUS decision.