The Republicans turn to their favorite punching bag once again: the courts

It appears, if the editorial page of the New York Times is to be believed, that Newt Gingrich is at it again. I figured as much. His apparent conversion to moderate politics – I have in mind here his recent position on illegal immigration – was too good to be true. In his defense, running for the Republican nomination is not easy. Lots of crazies out there. Ask Romney. 

Here is the latest. According to Gingrich, Congress and the President must begin to push back on the Court, Cooper v. Aaron and judicial supremacy be damned. Among the tools at the politico’s disposal are the power to strip jurisdiction; impeachment; and the right to abolish specific judicial seats. The affected institutions could also ignore rulings they don’t like. 

The Times’ editors find this approach distasteful. As a general matter, they argue that Gingrich’s attack on the courts takes “the normal attack on the justice system to a new low.” They equate his criticism to “McCarthyist tactics” designed to “smear judges.” Gingrich’s view that the political branches must stand up to the court is described as “twisted.” They close with the following: “His ideas would replace the rule of law with a reign of ideology. If he had his way, a Supreme Court that ordered an end to racist segregation policies would become a puppet of the political branches.” 

I have three reactions, and a better response to Mr. Gingrich. 

The Republican party on Illegal Immigration: where has its heart gone?

The Republican obsession with illegal immigration continues.  The latest salvo came last night, as GOP presidential candidates debated national security.  It came from Newt Gingrich, an unlikely source who, according to recent polls, has recently taken the lead in the GOP race.  Here is what he said:

"If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out."

 This is a perfectly reasonable, sensible -- dare one say it, humane -- response.  But we know that such an approach has already derailed the candidacy of Governor Perry, who led the field at one point yet now sits at 6% according to Quinnipiac's latest poll.  

The question everybody is asking this morning is whether this stance will cost Gingrich in the race.  History suggests that it will.  I have a slightly different question.   What must happen within a political culture for a person who has lived in a place for 25 years, with three children and two grandchildren, who pays taxes and obeys the law, goes to church to be removed from his family, uprooted, and forcefully kicked out?  How is such a consideration even on the table?

Rick Perry got it right the first time: such a culture has "no heart."  The question we must ask ourselves is how such a thing happened in the first place.