Gingrich at his demagogic worst, as usual

In case you missed it a few days ago, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was on Face the Nation at his demagogic best following the Supreme Court decision last week that detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have rights under our Constitution.

For a quick refresher, here's a brief report on the Supreme Court ruling, via MSNBC...

Anyway, Gingrich really drank the Kool-Aid with his comments on FTN, specifically this passage:

GINGRICH: I will say, I think the recent Supreme Court decision to turn over to a local district judge decisions of national security and life and death that should be made by the President and the Congress is the most extraordinarily arrogant and destructive decision the Supreme Court has made in it's history.

REID: In it's history?

GINGRICH: In it's history. Worse than Dred Scott, for the following reason: The court has now knowingly stepped in, this morning's newspaper say, smugglers had actually gotten the design of a nuclear weapon, that we now have the evidence that people out there had a nuclear weapon design. And this court is saying that any random district judge, based on whatever their personal caprice is, whatever their personal ideological bias, can intervene with a terrorist in such a way.

Pretty amusing to hear Newt Gingrich talking about ideological bias.

Two things: 1. To say that this decision was worse than the Dred Scott case is quite possibly the dumbest thing to ever come out of this man's mouth. And that's saying something, because there's quite a bonehead buffet to choose from - Gingrich once publicly stated that the US ought to re-institute orphanages for unwanted children.

To compare this decision to arguably the worst decision in the Supreme Court's history - that Congress had no authority to outlaw slavery, is the height of stupidity and ignorance. But, these sorts of statements are the norm with Gingrich. No wonder the man's been married three times - he has the morals of a promiscuous rabbit, and the ethics of a corrupt politician. Oops.

There's lots of fear mongering going around surrounding the Supreme Court decision, but again the question is worth asking, What's so wrong with allowing these criminals a trial by jury?

And 2. I'd much rather have a court decide the merits of a charge against a terrorist than an ideological president with political ulterior motives, be it Democrat or Republican.

It's amazing to me that people like Gingrich think that our judicial system isn't the answer to dealing with terrorists. I much prefer these trials than the secret military tribunals that the Bush administration favors, which includes torture, trials without representation, and a suppression of basic human rights in some cases (and that's just what we know about).

As with so many political issues, Gingrich is on the wrong side of public opinion. But, that's nothing new to him. This guy's more often wrong than right. (Clinton Impeachment, drilling in ANWR, etc.) Even when he's right, he ends up being wrong. I remember the laughable Contract with America in 1994 - term limits were a provision in that contract, and the public wanted it. However, that was conveniently left behind when politicians realized it would end their feeding at the public trough.