Newt Gingrich: Latest GOP Candidate With Horrific Ideas for Federal Courts

Conservative and liberal observers have criticized comments that Newt Gingrich made regarding federal courts.  The Washington Post reports that Gingrich told reporters during a conference call on Saturday that he would seek to abolish courts that issue decisions he views are improper.

Gingrich has also repeatedly criticized federal judges who, adhering to well established Supreme Court precedent, enjoin public schools from sponsoring religious activity:

“Are we forced for a lifetime to keep someone on the bench who is so radically anti-American that they are a threat to the fabric of the country?” Gingrich asked.

“What kind of judge says you’ll go to jail if the word ‘invocation’ is used? If this isn’t a speech dictatorship, I’d like you to show me what one looks like.”

The Constitution permits the removal of federal judges through the impeachment process. Otherwise, they have lifetime tenure. Gingrich's comments, therefore, reveal his distaste for the Constitution, which the president is obligated to uphold.

Gingrich has also said that he would like to force judges to come before Congress to explain their rulings. Unlike other governmental actors, judges, already explain their rulings in opinions. Gingrich's proposal is unnecessary. It also would allow for abusive violations of the separation of powers. Gingrich mistakenly believes that judges should be accountable to Congress, rather than the Constitution.

To support his dangerous ideas, Gingrich cites to Thomas Jefferson, who, in 1802 led his party's decision to abolish numerous new judgeships that the lame-duck Federalist-dominated Congress created following Jefferson's victory over John Adams. But Jefferson's actions are hardly model behavior.

Encouraged by Jefferson, the new Democratic-Republican Congress suspended the operation of the Supreme Court to prevent it from deciding the constitutionality of the repeal of the new judgeships. Jefferson later asked Congress to impeach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, who criticized Congress for repealing the judgeships.  Although this history is an embarrassing low-point in the treatment of the Court by the president and Congress, Gingrich invokes it as support for his own partisan agenda (Note: This history provides the background for the landmark decision in Marbury v. Madison).

GOP Candidates' Dangerous Ideas for the Court
Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and other Republicans have criticized Gingrich's ideas regarding the courts. Gingrich, however, is not the only Republican candidate who has dangerous views concerning the federal courts.

Rick Perry, for example, wants to abolish lifetime tenure for judges. This plan would undoubtedly make them more vulnerable to partisan control. Perry also wants to give Congress the power to overrule Court decisions by a 2/3 vote. Although Congress can already reverse the Court's interpretation of statutes by simply passing new legislation, reversing the Court on Constitutional matters requires a constitutional amendment, not a vote of Congress.

Although Ron Paul has criticized Gingrich, Paul has also advanced some dangerous proposals for the Court. Paul, for example, has introduced a bill called the "We the People Act." If passed, this bill would prohibit federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from deciding whether state or local laws violate the "the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction. . .or. . .the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws." Paul's proposal would divest the federal courts of the power to protect extremely important liberties against state infringement.

Paul's proposal would also prohibit any court ruling that "otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states." This broad prohibition would effectively negate judicial enforcement of the Constitution and federal statutes, to the extent that state law conflicts with these provisions.

Gingrich Fading
Although Gingrich's ideas are dangerous, it seems that his openness in expressing them has frightened voters. Although Gingrich soared to popularity among GOP voters after Herman Cain left the race, it appears that voters are now taking a second look, and he is falling in the polls. In other words, even conservative voters are rejecting his extreme views.

Dr. Dre Ad Splashes Color (and Best Buy)!

Blue Beats By Dr. Dre

Up until a few weeks ago, I had never heard of Dr. Dre headphones. But lately, they seem to be popping up all over the place: on Twitter, on TV and on the heads of celebrities.

Of greatest note, is a holiday campaign for their new Studio line of headphones, offered in a "spectrum of candy colors good enough to eat."

From the moment this ad began, I was hooked. Splashes of color explode as they hit people, in brilliant hues of blue, orange, pink, purple and red. The ad is entertaining, engaging and just plain fun to watch.

I must admit that, at first, I thought this was a SONY Bravia ad, which are famous for their use of vibrant splashes of color. But, I enjoyed this ad far more than any SONY ad I've ever seen.

There was one surprise that surreptitiously appeared on the sleeve of one of the actors partway through the ad - a Best Buy logo. Cool co-branding campaign ... it was done so smoothly that I almost didn't notice it.

Color Beats By Dr. Dre and Best Buy Partnership

Too bad my Christmas list has already been delivered ... this would have been an excellent addition!

Orange Beats By Dr. Dre

Purple Beats By Dr. Dre

Red Beats By Dr. Dre

What Does Romney's $10,000 Bet Tell Us: NOTHING

Mitt Romney has received a lot of criticism for making a $10,000 wager during the recent Republican presidential debate. Romney made the bet during a dispute with Rick Perry over the details in a book Perry had authored.

To most of the media, the substance of the Perry-Romney debate is irrelevant. Instead, media accounts have focused primarily on the amount of money Romney wagered. Although Romney has received criticism across the political divide, Democrats, in particular, have tried to exploit the matter.

The DNC has argued that the amount of the wager proves that Romney is "out of touch" with most Americans, obviously alluding to his vast wealth. This argument is a loser. First, saying that a candidate is "out of touch" is an ambiguous statement. It is unclear what it means to be "out of touch" or to be "in touch."  President George W. Bush, for example, was commonly portrayed as someone who could sit down and have a drink with the "average" American. He and his family, however, are extremely wealthy.

Furthermore, if wealth or high income makes a candidate unfit for office, then the DNC should question President Obama as well. In 2010, the Obamas reported income of nearly $1.8 million.  In 2009, they reported income exceeding $5.6 million. This certainly places them among the highest tier of income earners. Also, Hillary and Bill Clinton have made massive amounts of money since Clinton left office in 2000.

Rather than using wealth as a litmus test, I encourage the Democrats and the media to focus on substance instead. It is a much more compelling way to evaluate a candidate.  Given the current status of the media and politics, however, hoping for substantive analysis is a fantasy.

Brooks Brothers Asks You To "Share The Sheep"

How can you not be pulled into a commercial that has seven adorable, fluffy sheep singing Jingle Bells in childlike voices? As much as I wanted to turn away from this ad, I just couldn't do it...especially when the little guy with the blue scarf timidly stepped towards the front of the herd to shyly and hesitantly sing a solo. (He kind of reminded me of Rudolph when he was trying to hide his shiny nose.)

The ad is on the front page of the Brooks Brothers website where they encourage you to "SHARE the  SHEEP" with a friend:

Brooks Brothers Share The Sheep

This whole campaign is brilliant for a number of reasons:

- How can anyone resist singing sheep?
- Who doesn't like hearing a lively Christmas tune to help get in the holiday mood?
- Who can resist the urge to share a cute ad with friends? (Case in point, the Office Max Elf Yourself)

Plus, it's a great way to increase awareness of Brooks Brothers and to add to their prospective customer database.

Jingle bells
Jingle bells
Jingle all the way
... to the bank

Every Murder Victim Has A Story: Update on Joseph Alonzo Sharps Case

17-year-old Joseph Alonzo Sharps, Jr. was murdered on November 8, 2010. His death was the subject of a Dissenting Justice article last year. Although Sharps's death did not generate an abundance of media attention, due probably to his race and class, a number of bloggers and some reporters covered the story.

The murder was incredibly tragic, especially because, by all accounts, Sharps was a young, ambitious and friendly child, who was shot in cold-blood for no reason whatsoever. Sharps's best friend De'Onte Bilbro was severely injured during the shooting.

Today, testimony began in the trial of Kwan Kearney, the individual accused of killing Sharps. Homicidewatch.org, a blog that helps bring desperately needed attention to DC murder victims, has published a report of the first-day of the trial, which includes some chilling testimony by Larnell Allen.  Allen is a second defendant who has accepted a plea agreement:

“As soon as [Kearney] pulls the gun he fires,” Allen said of the run-in between Sharps, Bilbro, Kearney, a 14-year-old, and himself. “I withdrew my gun from my hip and I fired. It’s like backing him up. One fires, we all fire.” (boldface added)

That shooting killed 17-year-old Sharps and seriously wounded then-18-year-old Bilbro. Families of the two young men were in court Tuesday, both in the audience and on the witness stand. Bilbro, too, took the witness stand, describing for jurors how he and his best friend were walking home from a nearby gas station, when three guys walked towards them on the sidewalk.

“I looked to see who I was walking past and the tallest one said ‘Whatchya reaching for?’” Bilbro remembered. “Joe said, ‘We ain’t reaching for nothing.”

That’s when the shots rang out, Bilbro said, he fell to the ground injured. His left leg lay up against his stomach; he later learned that his femur had been shattered. Still, he got up and ran across the street thinking that he could go get help. But once across the street, his leg crumpled under him and he fell, again.

He called his mom on his cell phone.

"Mom,” Dorothea Bilbro told the jury her son said when she picked up the phone. “I’ve been shot. Around the corner.”

She jumped in her car and drove around the corner. “I saw Joe and I saw De’Onte,” she remembered. She checked on her son, then ran to his best friend.

“This is Ma Bilbro,” she said she told Sharps. “You’re going to be alright.”

Sharps died moments later.

Strange Twists
This case involves some strange twists that indicate the level of violence among youth who live in concentrated poverty within the District of Columbia. Kwan Kearney was arrested for killing another youth prior to his arrest for killing Sharps. His brother, Eric Kearney was slated to testify for the defense in the other case. Last month, however, Eric Kearney was murdered.

Prosecutors believe that Kearney was murdered because he revealed that another individual, who is currently incarcerated, was going to testify for the prosecution. A friend of that individual allegedly killed Eric in order to silence him from broadcasting information about the witness.  The death of Eric Kearney delayed Kwan Kearney's trial for the death of Joseph Sharps.

Wendy's "Where's the Beef?" Has Jumped The Cow

Wendy's "Where's The Beef?" 1984 ad

In 1984, Wendy's launched a campaign designed to get people to notice that their hamburgers were full-sized, unlike some of the other fast food chains selling burgers.

The campaign, dubbed the "Where's the beef?" campaign ran for what seemed like years (but was probably only months). It featured little white-haired ladies cackling out the words, "Where's the beef? Where's the beef?" Their tinny voices wormed their way into your ears, leaving you begging for a reprieve.

In a word, the campaign was annoying. The little old ladies were annoying.

But, just like Wisk's "Ring Around The Collar" campaign, it appeared to do its job and to do it well. People parroted the words back, successfully making Wendy's ad campaign part of pop culture.

Now, 27 years later, Wendy's is at it again. This time, though, they are using a younger, hipper, social media savvy man to spread the news that Wendy's is revamping their single, double and triple burgers.

Is it just me or does this campaign feel like an idea past its prime? Why take something that had become an icon back in 1984 and try to force fit into 2011? Or is Wendy's trying to tell us that their hamburgers are about as fresh as their advertising?

It feels like Wendy's has jumped the shark ... or is that the cow?

Wendy's "Where's the Beef?" Facebook Campaign

Wendy's "Where's the Beef?" New Spokesman

Wendy's "Where's The Beef?" 2011 Ad

Newt Gingrich: Poor Kids Will Only Do Work If It Is "Illegal" (Text and Video)

Newt Gingrich, the GOP presidential favorite du jour, made some interesting (translation: idiotic) comments about the plight of poor kids during a campaign rally earlier today. As reported by The Hill, a conservative political blog, Gingrich made the following statement during his speech (see video below):

Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works, so they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. . . .They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of "I do this and you give me cash" unless it's illegal.

As you can discern from this quote, Gingrich is a brilliant sociologist! He is so familiar with sociology and poverty, that he has never heard of the "working poor" -- millions of Americans who work daily but who cannot escape poverty. Also, this learned social commentator is unfamiliar with the struggles of unemployed poor folks who continue to seek legal work in this sluggish economy.

Gingrich has a simple solution to the complex problem of generational poverty:  Since the law requires poor kids to go to school, the schools could employ them as "assistant janitors" to "mop the floor" or "clean the bathroom" or in various other positions.  I wonder why great minds never thought of this before Newt did.

Searching for the Romney Antidote
It is almost laughable that the GOP continues to search for the "not-Romney" candidate. Mitt Romney is too moderate to capture the attention of rightwing voters, who will have tremendous power during the Republican primaries. Nevertheless, Romney is the only GOP candidate who seems to have an elementary grasp of basic facts related to government and the economy.

Conservative favorites Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain have imploded due to their deep ignorance and personal failings. Now, conservatives hope that Gingrich will defeat Romney.

Fortunately, Gingrich has an uncontrollable urge to speak. Thus, he he will undoubtedly continue to spew ignorance throughout the campaign season. After Gingrich self-destructs, will conservative icon Sarah Palin take the plunge? Tune in!

Newt Video



Note: It is fun watching The Hill post negative news about Gingrich. This is possibly an effort to bolster Romney.