Mr. Gingrich, the former House speaker, called for the abolition of courts that issued decisions he found questionable and for subpoenaing judges to explain unpopular rulings.
While the intended purpose of some of the nation’s constitutional amendments and grants of implied powers can be debated, because the Framers left these purposely ambiguous to account for a expanding nation, the purpose of creating a federal judiciary insulated from popular pressure certainly cannot.
It is clear from its design that the crafters of the American court system chose that they wanted a court that could render decisions free from threat and or intimidation by its sister branches. To suppose that one of those branches can undo the decisions of another because it finds these disagreeable is laughable. Mr. Gingrich may cite the portion of Article III that gives the Congress the power to establish new courts as they fit for justification of this action. But, even a cursory glance at the rationale for this article extorts an easy response-the founders new the nation and its needs would grow substantially following the ratification of the constitution and thus they did not want to handicap the new nation by limiting its abililty to grow its institutions accordingly.
Do you believe that the president or any other branch of government should have the ability to undo the actions of another? Should one branch be able to sit in judgement of another, granting to them the power to inhibit or even block decisions that they believe harm the nation or the constitution?