Newt Gingrich Gets into a Heated Exchange with Rep. Neguse over Judicial Coup D’état: ‘You’re Making My Case’

NEGUSE: “Mr. Gingrich, I wasn’t planning on talking about impeachment, but I just have to spend a minute on it, given the statement you made just a minute ago. I think you said, if I’m not mistaken, you said that the two impeachments against President Trump were repudiated in the Senate. Is that the right word you used?”

GINGRICH: “Yes.”

NEGUSE: “Yeah, OK. And would you describe the impeachment that you initiated against President Clinton 35 some odd years ago and the Senate’s reaction to that impeachment in the same way?”

GINGRICH: “Well, it failed. This is part of why Jefferson thought impeachment was not a realistic possibility.”

NEGUSE: “Well, I would just simply suggest to you that, because I served as an impeachment manager in the second impeachment trial against President Trump following the attack on our nation’s Capitol. And in that impeachment, as you well know, of all the presidential impeachments, which I suspect you’ve studied, seven Republican senators did something that no senators had done in the history of our Republic, which is voted to convict a president of their own political party. So, I think that is a far cry from repudiation. I understand that it didn’t meet the constitutional threshold for success.”

GINGRICH: “Actually, President Johnson had the same experience in, I believe 1868.”

NEGUSE: “I will just, again, simply say to you that unlike the impeachment — one, that’s inaccurate, Republican senators, excuse me, with respect to the impeachment trial of 1868 against President Johnson, that is not accurate. It’s the first time in American history in which senators of an opposing political party voted to convict a president, but — of their same party, but I digress. Want to talk to you about a phrase you used, I think this is accurate, you called it a judicial coup d’etat. Is that — am I right?”

GINGRICH: “That’s correct.”

NEGUSE: “OK. And you would describe, you know, 14 federal judges appointed by a president of an opposing political party issuing nationwide injunctions against the president’s executive orders as a judicial coup d’etat?”

GINGRICH: “I would describe the wave of decisions in the last seven weeks deliberately designed to slow down, unwind and block —“

NEGUSE: “Sure.”

GINGRICH: “— the president is clearly an effort by a group of judges.”

NEGUSE: “I hear us. I hear you. What I’m asking you — again, I don’t think I’m mischaracterizing your testimony. 14 federal judges, all of an opposing political party — that is to say, 14 federal judges appointed by a president of an opposing political party issuing nationwide injunctions against the president’s policies, in your view, would be a judicial coup d’etat?”

GINGRICH: “Depends on — depends on how long the time was between each injunction.”

NEGUSE: “Sounds like it depends on the president, Mr. Gingrich, because the president I’m describing is President Biden.”

GINGRICH: “I know.”

NEGUSE: “During his tenure, 14 federal judges issued injunctions against policies that he pursued via executive order. How many of them were appointed by Republican presidents, do you know?”

GINGRICH: “No.”

NEGUSE: “100 percent, all of them.”

GINGRICH: “Well, you’re making my case.”

NEGUSE: “I’m making your case?”

GINGRICH: “They shouldn’t be able to —“

NEGUSE: “What’s fascinating, Mr. Gingrich, is I didn’t hear much from you about judicial coup d’etats when President Biden’s policies were being rejected by federal judges across the country. It is very convenient now, lo and behold, that you take great issue and you describe it as a judicial coup d’etat when I didn’t hear these words two years ago.”

GINGRICH: “Had the Judiciary Committee invited me in during the Biden Administration —“

NEGUSE: “Oh, I see, I see.”

GINGRICH: “— I would have been glad to say —“

NEGUSE: “Well, I regret that Chairman Jordan —“

GINGRICH: “I don’t approve of —“

NEGUSE: “I regret that Chairman Jordan didn’t issue an invitation to you when, as Mr. Massie articulated, policy after policy, executive order after executive order issued by President Biden were being rejected by federal courts, subject to nationwide injunctions across the land. Apparently you were just waiting —“

GINGRICH: “No —“

NEGUSE: “— to come testify in front of the committee to call that a judicial coup d’état against President Biden. That’s what it sounds like.”

GINGRICH: “That’s why I believe any kind of nationwide injunction should immediately go to the Supreme Court to be validated as a nationwide activity.”

NEGUSE: “Well —“

GINGRICH: “I don’t believe district judges have the authority.”

NEGUSE: “I understand that alternative. I understand that you’ve provided that particular alternative as something for this committee to consider. Your written testimony indicates far more significant and structural changes. You know, you referenced the Judiciary Act of 1802 and this notion that the Congress can abolish district courts and the rest. And you seem to be suggesting those as remedies that we ought to consider. In any event, I just want to talk — I know — I’ll ask the chairman to indulge me since I know he’s indulged other members. You have talked about, and I’ll just read it from an article here. There’s a long tradition which has only been broken really starting in the late 1950s with this crazy idea that lawyers and judges are superior to the rest of us and they get to define everything. Right?”

GINGRICH: “That’s correct.”

NEGUSE: “And you’re referencing what case?”

GINGRICH: “Cooper vs. Aaron.”

NEGUSE: “Cooper vs. Aaron. That case was a desegregation case, right?”

GINGRICH: “Yeah, but that wasn’t the point of it.”

NEGUSE: “I understand that this was a — this was a case in which the state of Arkansas was seeking the ability to not comply with Brown vs. Board of Education in desegregating schools in Arkansas. It had nothing to do, by the way, Speaker Gingrich, with presidential power. It had to do with the supremacy of the Constitution and the ability of states to respect the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. There are a variety of cases, long before Cooper, in which the Supreme Court has opined on the constitutionality of a president’s actions, Youngstown being a great example. It is convenient that, for whatever reason, you have landed on these 1950s desegregation cases as the inception, in your view, of the Supreme Court’s tyranny, as you describe it, I suppose. I don’t think that that’s consistent with the values of the American people. It’s the reason why Republican jurists, Michael Mukasey, a very distinguished federal jurist, as you know, has attacked your ideas in the past. I think you’d concede that. I yield back.”

UNKNOWN: “And I — continue indulgence, I would let the Speaker finish.”

GINGRICH: “All I will say is the reference to that is from a book by a liberal — liberal lawyer who said specifically that it’s Cooper vs. Aaron where, with no reference to the case, the Supreme Court decides to issue a statement that it is clear that we are supreme and they’re not talking about we’re supreme over Arkansas, we are the supreme deciders. And that is explicitly false and then historically wrong. And it’s what Jefferson was so furious about in 1800 because he did not believe judges had the ability to overrule the American people.”

UNKNOWN: “I thank the gentleman.”