Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Sioux City Debate Video Highlights

Sioux City Debate Video Highlights

In case you missed it last night, the full video is available at Sheya. Tweets of the Night are here, and my quick post-game analysis here.

Here are some highlights:

Newt on Pipeline and “Zany”

Michelle Bachmann v. Ron Paul on Iran

Newt on Courts

More to follow [note – having trouble finding good and short highlights.  Seems as if only Ron Paul and Newt campaigns and supporters were quick to put out YouTube versions.  So if you have suggestions, please post link in comments.]

Bachmann falsely accusing Newt of tolerating infanticide (h/t HotAir)

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Interesting how Newt’s unconstitutional plan to deal with the courts is strangely edited out of the last video. He claims to like 3 equal branches, but wants to make the judicial subservient to the legislative. If he is willing to do that over justices, what else is he willing to subvert?
Also Jefferson did not “abolish judges”. Congress repealed the judiciary act, and were not strict constitutionalists about it.

    imfine in reply to Zaggs. | December 16, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    Congress creates the courts, appoints its judges, how cases should proceed, on what grounds and may regulate them dismantle them as it sees fit. Make no mistake the branches may have checks and balances, but it is Congress that is the superior branch. It alone can remove anyone in the federal government from office, create and destroy as it sees fit. The only thing the other branches can do is delay it, but aside from a constitutional convention, there is no superior, not even equal institution pr branch for that matter. The only true check on it, is the people through regular elections mandated by the constitution may remove their representatives.

    Judges summoned before the congress must appear, only the President has a right to refuse an Appearence. they may question the judges about anything related to a case and try and hold them in contempt for failing to answer. The only right they have not to answer is to Plead the 5th. There is nothing unconstitutional about congress making it known that it alone as the right to make laws and asserting that right to make it known among the other branches.

      Zaggs in reply to imfine. | December 16, 2011 at 2:55 pm

      Except the courts have jurisdiction. Newt doesn’t like that. He want’s congress to have jurisdiction. Thats whats make it unconstitutional. If Newt doesn’t like the outcome, dissolve the court and replace it with justices he likes. You really want a president who is going to start a war over district courts like that? Would you have applauded if Obama had dissolved the 4th circuit and replaced it with left leaning judges during his first 2 years?
      The reason federal judges are appointed for life is so they have independence. Newts plan would destroy that.
      Not to mention his pissy granpa comeback that no one in power had a problem with Jefferson’s plan. They did. It was quite the debate.

        imfine in reply to Zaggs. | December 16, 2011 at 5:04 pm

        As opposed to letting a judge crap all over the constitution without fear of consequences? Yeah I think I’ll side with Jefferson on this and let the judges know unacceptable behavior will result in termination.

Article III:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish…

Mr Newt sometimes misses the basics. On Freddie, he only needs to say: We worked out a consulting contract, I did the work as described, they paid me. Nuf said.
With respect to the courts: Don’t they have about 9 old white haired mullahs as overseers in Iran? Do we want our court system to look like that? As noted above, it is possible to have two of the branches gang up on the third.
It is popular to go after the judicial branch, but a bunch of us are very worried about the executive. Look how the DOJ (under the executive) can be so intimidating.

Hannity followed up with Newt … “What did you do for your money from Freddie”. Newt said something about showing how he could teach people to budget for a house, and showing them how to care for a house.

REALLY? Advising Freddie on how to better instruct home buyers on how to care for a house? It seems to me that Fannie Freddie threw money at all lobbyists, so much money either to lobby for them, or to NOT lobby against them.

It seems rather clear Newt’s influence was what was paid for (to stay silent and not wield it against Freddie), and Newt can’t come clean on that at all. He did not take money directly to lobby for Freddie, but his excuses for why they paid him so much seem rather lame.

There are questions about Romney’s Bain time. I’d rather have seen him as CEO of a company that actually produced, than a company, than one that went into companies and sometimes “gutted” them while billing them top dollar. Did Romney make Staples successful, or did he just buy out competitors … I’d like to hear what he really did.

But certainly I give Romney more credit for being in the private sector and understanding business, than Gingrich’s “advising” as a historian, which seemed really a cover for payment for not fighting Freddie.

Newt still has more conservative chops, but also explains his seeming flip flops on his negotiating and getting things done. Maybe … but I don’t know that one has to pretend to take the other side’s position to be able to negotiate a deal.

Romney seems to have the organization and bigger money behind him … and the hair.

Newt is spot on over the court issue. We don’t need a priesthood of lawyers dictating the truth to us.

Congress should have this jurisdiction to police the other two branches and they plainly do according to the Constitution. It’s called oversight. Who else would do if not them. The other two branches are slowly but surely taking power away from congress. Remember congress is made up of representatives elected to represent us. They are, after all 535 people as opposed to 1 in the presidency and 9 in the SC. Also the judiciary are not elected officials but have been appointed for life. This is one of the checks. Congress has this power but it is spread out amongst many instead of few. It is too bad congress is full of idiots.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend