Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Also, men are picking up the wearing of high heels because they’re so comfortable Previous entry: When calling out lies, don’t lie. Duh.

Don’t Know Much About History

In case anyone was unaware, Newt Gingrich is a professional historian.

Well, okay, not really - he's got a PhD and was denied tenure then went around Washington D.C. generally being the sort of haughty dick who misread an article on Cracked.com and is amused by your lack of knowledge concerning what really happened to Amelia Earhart. 

He's also an ideas man, a brilliant ideas man, and is willing to take this country forward into 1915...if only we'll let him. One of his recurring ideas is to seek vengeance on federal judges by abolishing their positions, and from that point sending the clear message that he has no idea how the Constitution works.

The Judicial Reform Act of 1802 abolishe[d] 18 out of 35 federal judges. That doesn’t impeach them, it just says this court no longer exists, we are no longer going to fund it, go home. That was over half of all federal judges at that time.

… take the most bizarre of judges and simply abolish their court. Tell them to go home. Those are the kind of steps. And I think they will lead to a very substantial national debate. There is nobody who has had the temerity now for almost 60 years to stand up and say that this is absurd.

Gingrich defends this idea as "Jeffersonian", because Jefferson was behind the JRA of 1802, and people like the way "Jeffersonian" sounds. It's mellifluent. Also, it abolished 16 positions, not 18, but history's not about accuracy. It's about ideas.

Here's the problem: Gingrich wants to abolish the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The JRA of 1802 abolished judgeships within each circuit, but still kept judges on each circuit. Gingrich's suggestion of abolition isn't just a foolhardy act of political vengeance; it's very likely unconstitutional as threatened.

A basic tenet of due process and equal protection is that all citizens have equal access to whatever form of judicial adjudication the federal government makes available. By abolishing the appellate arm of the Ninth Circuit, roughly 20% of America (the population of the Ninth Circuit states) would have no effective appellate rights in the federal system. Our current system of jurisdiction and venue laws bar the sort of circuit-hopping necessary to afford Ninth Circuit residents appellate rights in other circuits (and the closest states to the Ninth are the not exactly judge-heavy Utah, New Mexico, Wyoming and North and South Dakota). 

Gingrich is a poor student of history, and an even worse student of the Constitution. My suggestion: he should hire some poor ghetto children to do some research for him.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Jesse Taylor on 08:15 PM • (17) Comments

Next he’ll argue for abolishing all the West Coast congressional districts.

Comment #1: Auguste  on  12/05  at  08:25 PM

This is the man who, in his Ph.D. dissertation at Tulane, defended the Belgian colonial administration of the Congo.  Tells you everything you need to know about Newt’s moral compass.  Also raises serious questions about the Tulane history department.

Comment #2: DrDick  on  12/05  at  08:45 PM

Well, okay, not really - he’s got a PhD and was denied tenure then went around Washington D.C. generally being the sort of haughty dick who misread an article on Cracked.com and is amused by your lack of knowledge concerning what really happened to Amelia Earhart.

Hey!  Watch it!  I don’t appreciate being compared to Gingrich at all.

Comment #3: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  12/05  at  09:02 PM

Speaking as one who is in training to become a historian (though not necessarily an academic), Newt is an embarrassment.

Comment #4: Linnaeus  on  12/05  at  10:05 PM

I love Paul Krugman’s explanation of Newt’s “appeal” in some quarters- he’s a stupid person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like.

Comment #5: Steve LaBonne  on  12/05  at  11:09 PM

“Gingrich is a poor student of history, and an even worse student of the Constitution.”

...in other words, he has sterling qualifications for the Reichwing nomination.  And whether he gets the nom or not, he will be able to sustain his lucrative career as a go-to loudmouth Republican asshole with a probably-disgusting opinion on every subject for the foreseeable future. 

Which is important, ‘cause Pat Buchanan can’t live forever…

Comment #6: MikeEss  on  12/05  at  11:36 PM

Gingrich is a poor student of history, and an even worse student of the Constitution.

His specialty seems to be Western European History….specifically Belgian Education policy in the Congo.  Considering his specialty is far removed from US history and basic college survey courses in US history only give shallow coverage of the Constitution at best…..it may be somewhat understandable considering the Constitution is a specialty which even confounds academics and jurists specializing in its study.* 

That’s not to say I’m excusing him as he should have the initiative to learn this on his own….especially considering his subsequent entry into American politics. 

On the other hand, Tulane University was known in my neck of the woods far more for their college Greek societies and parties than their academics…even though they do have some respectable departments.  Maybe Newt was really partying during his grad school years. 


* You’d be surprised at how many poli-sci majors specializing in US politics/American studies and aspiring lawyers/law students who have a weak/non-existent grasp of basic US history….much less the Constitution.  And they’re the ones who really should have had it down considering their respective academic concentrations.  While I was appalled at one private/boarding school college poli-sci major classmate who was allowed to graduate without having a basic working knowledge of US history…..he was studying Comparative Politics concentrating on Chinese and Western European politics…so his ignorance could be somewhat understandable….though even he realized it was an embarrassment…..not something to be shown off proudly.

Comment #7: exholt  on  12/06  at  01:39 AM

I feel embarassed for Tulane if anything.  He struggled for 8 years in a tier-4 university and was refused tenure.  But not before he was pushed out of the history department and into the geography department which is a smack in the face.  The geography department is either remedial or usually in conjunction with a foreign language.  It’s a support department at most.  He was either a piss-poor educator or a horrible human being…probably both.  He besmirches the good name of historians everywhere.  Than again he really did defend the MODERN colonial regime in the Congo.  This man defended colonialists in the MID-20th CENTURY and yet he has the gaul to call Obama a secret anti-colonialist hatemonger….

If he gets the nomination it will be George Wallace in a slightly fatter suit.

Comment #8: Xeranar  on  12/06  at  04:19 AM

Is this the GOP’s version of 90s nostalgia, supporting Newt? The guy who wanted to stop Clinton, who balanced the budget (one of their dreams, allegedly)? If so, just go listen to Nirvana or Soundgarden

Comment #9: Neil C.  on  12/06  at  11:11 AM

I’m not amused, I’m horrified by Newt, because he does have a chance.  Lily-white (whiter than white, really), male, seemingly well educated, willing to make insane suggestions like this that the wingnut base loves.  Not a Mormon. His fidelity/woman problems might not sting him since they’re far enough in the past to fade into the background. 

Divorcing his first wife when she had cancer might even gain him some votes because that paints him as tough and willing to do what we have to do even if women suffer for it.

Comment #10: oldfeminist  on  12/06  at  11:13 AM

@ oldfeminist @ 11 - in this economy, anyone has a chance.  Even Palin’s chances weren’t zero.  The good news is that Gingrich has a significantly smaller chance than Romney.  Obama’s best chance is to make this an election that contrasts him as a person against the Republican challenger.  Personally, I think he could take Romney just fine that way - it would be like 2004, a boring placeholder against a dynamic, exciting character - but it would be less sure, because on the surface at least, Romney seems sober and reasonable.  Against Newt, it becomes “Sane person vs. the guy who wants to eliminate child labor laws”.  The moderates and independents become significantly easier to win over at that point.

And whether you find him amusing or not, it’s still better to mock him.  Just look at Rick Santorum and Anthony Weiner.  Politicians can survive a scandal, but it causes real damage if they become a joke.

Comment #11: Seraph  on  12/06  at  11:25 AM

It’s fair to call Gingrich a historian since he does have degrees in history, but a professional historian?  The only work he does that has anything to do with history is writing historical novels, so he’s no more a professional historian than Diana Gabaldon.

Comment #12: Nutella  on  12/06  at  12:01 PM

“Divorcing his first wife when she had cancer might even gain him some votes because that paints him as tough and willing to do what we have to do even if women suffer for it.”

...because it’s difficult to be a proper asshole for anyone with a conscience and a sense of morality, both of which ol’ Newtie had surgically removed decades ago, leaving behind only the purified (putrefied?) essence of Randian sociopathy…

And Libertarian, what’s with this “who cares who gets to be POTUS as long as they’re entertaining” thing, dismissing the acceleration of the handbasket we’re stuck in that will result if the Reichwing really gets their guy into the White House.  I’m sure you hate Obama (irrationally, most likely), but come on…

I would hope that you’d be intelligent enough to recognize that Obama is basically an Eisenhower-style Republican.  In comparison, Newt is like the second coming of Strom Thurmond in 1948.  Or, as Xeranar pointed out above, George Wallace in 1968.

Those who fail to learn from the past, etc….

Comment #13: MikeEss  on  12/06  at  12:49 PM

How come you guys NEVER talk about the five wars we’re in, drones, Gitmo, collateral damage, etc anymore?

Uh-huh

Comment #14: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  12/06  at  02:17 PM

“How come you guys NEVER talk about the five wars we’re in, drones, Gitmo, collateral damage, etc anymore?  It was only interesting to you when Bush was in the White House.  The whole anit-war “movement” was a fraud, it was all astroturf anti-Bush anti-Repub propoganda.  The minute Zero got in you disappeared.”

I’ve been consistently pissed off about all those things since Lyndon Johnson was POTUS. 

If you lose your life because of American soldiers or American bombs, it doesn’t matter whether it was a Democratic or Republican president who was responsible for giving the orders.

If you’re being tortured in Gitmo, same thing.

Drones?  Closest thing to war as a video game (Why are you upset, hey it’s just a game man!) ever.  Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, etc. would all have used drones to kill by remote control if they had been available.  Most of them would have used them on Americans in America too.

The antiwar marches failed because the media wanted war.  Good for ratings!  If a tree falls in the forest and the media don’t cover it, then it didn’t happen.  If you march and nobody (other than whoever was there) knows you marched, you never marched. 

BTW, they didn’t disappear, the OWS movement is more or less the offspring of the antiwar marches.  Besides, ever heard of “FireBaggers”?  Plenty of people on the Left are pissed at Obama.

The Supreme Court said money = free speech.  Who has all the money?  It ain’t the Left (outside of a few Hollywood types and other celebrities)  We don’t have Koch, Mellon-Scaife, conservative think-tank, Reichwing Noise Machine money…

Comment #15: MikeEss  on  12/06  at  02:43 PM

The British colonialists were not as gentle and efficient or as good at helping local development as were the French.

The Germans were not as gentle and efficient as the British.

The Spanish were worse than the Germans.

The Dutch were worse than the Spanish.

The Belgians were worse than the Dutch.

Gingrich praises the Belgians.

Comment #16: Dr. Psycho  on  12/08  at  04:51 PM

Forget the Constitution.
“Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. We have invented the Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and are historically part of the Arab people, and they had the chance to go many places,” said Newt Gingrich in an interview with the Jewish Channel.

Uh, gee, Newt, Palestine predates the Ottoman Empire.  It is referred to in the Bible a couple hundred times. (why aren’t the wingnuts all over this one?)  And when the Middle Age Crusades were taking place in the Holy Land of Palestine, was that a made up place? (yes, but no….)

Comment #17: helen w. h.  on  12/12  at  02:05 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.