Republican Candidates on Abolishing Courts and Subpoenaing Judges (ContributorNetwork)

According to the Huffington Post, Newt Gingrich declared that as president, he would abolish courts and subpoena activist judges that he thought were out of line. This position has been characterized as "outrageous," "totally irresponsible" and a threat to checks and balances by two former conservative attorney generals, according to Bret Baier.

As a result, the candidates seeking the Republican presidential nomination were asked for their opinions on subpoenaing judges and judicial power, in general.

Here is what they said, according to a debate transcript provided by the American Presidency Project:

* Newt Gingrich: "The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful, and I think, frankly, arrogant in their misreading of the American people. ? When the Ninth Circuit Court said that 'one nation under God' is unconstitutional in the Pledge of Allegiance. ? I decided, if you had judges who were so radically anti-American that they thought "one nation under God" was wrong, they shouldn't be on the court. ... We have a balance of three branches. We do not have a judicial dictatorship in this country. And that's what the Federalist papers promised us. And I would -- just like Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and FDR -- be prepared to take on the judiciary if, in fact, it did not restrict itself in what it was doing."

* Michele Bachmann: "I would agree with Newt Gingrich that I think that the Congress and the president of the United States have failed to take their authority. Because now we've gotten to the point where we think the final arbitrator of law is the court system. It isn't. The intention of the founders was that the courts would be the least powerful system of government. And if we give to the courts, the right to make law, then the people will have lost their representation. They need to hold onto their representation."

* Ron Paul: "Well the Congress can get rid of these courts. If a judge misbehaves and is unethical and gets into trouble, the proper procedure is impeachment. But to subpoena judges before the Congress, I'd really question that. And if you get too careless about abolishing courts, that could open up a can of worms. ??? But the whole thing is, if you just say, well we're going to -- OK there are 10 courts, let's get rid of three this year because they ruled a way we didn't like. ??? That's a real affront to the separation of the powers."

* Mitt Romney: "As many as half the justices in the next four years are going to be appointed by the next president. This is a critical time to choose someone who believes in conservative principles. Now I don't believe that it makes a lot of sense to have Congress overseeing justices. The only group that has less credibility than justices perhaps is Congress. So let's not have them be in charge of overseeing the justices."

* Rick Perry: "When I talk about overhauling Washington, D.C., one of the things I talk about besides a part-time Congress is no longer having lifetime terms for the federal bench. I think that is one of the ways that you keep these unaccountable legislators from rogues to try to dictate to the rest of us."

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/gop/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20120110/pl_ac/10721655_republican_candidates_on_abolishing_courts_and_subpoenaing_judges

drosselmeyer pacific standard time local time when is daylight savings 2011 what time is it cain gingrich debate andy rooney dies