Farewell. The Flying Pig Has Left The Building.

Steve Hynd, August 16, 2012

After four years on the Typepad site, eight years total blogging, Newshoggers is closing it's doors today. We've been coasting the last year or so, with many of us moving on to bigger projects (Hey, Eric!) or simply running out of blogging enthusiasm, and it's time to give the old flying pig a rest.

We've done okay over those eight years, although never being quite PC enough to gain wider acceptance from the partisan "party right or wrong" crowds. We like to think we moved political conversations a little, on the ever-present wish to rush to war with Iran, on the need for a real Left that isn't licking corporatist Dem boots every cycle, on America's foreign misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. We like to think we made a small difference while writing under that flying pig banner. We did pretty good for a bunch with no ties to big-party apparatuses or think tanks.

Those eight years of blogging will still exist. Because we're ending this typepad account, we've been archiving the typepad blog here. And the original blogger archive is still here. There will still be new content from the old 'hoggers crew too. Ron writes for The Moderate Voice, I post at The Agonist and Eric Martin's lucid foreign policy thoughts can be read at Democracy Arsenal.

I'd like to thank all our regular commenters, readers and the other bloggers who regularly linked to our posts over the years to agree or disagree. You all made writing for 'hoggers an amazingly fun and stimulating experience.

Thank you very much.

Note: This is an archive copy of Newshoggers. Most of the pictures are gone but the words are all here. There may be some occasional new content, John may do some posts and Ron will cross post some of his contributions to The Moderate Voice so check back.


Sunday, December 18, 2011

The Rule of Law is for other people

By BJ Bjornson

How nice of Newt Gingrich to remind everyone of how absolutely bugfuck nuts he and his party actually are:

Newt Gingrich on Sunday hammered at the nation�s judiciary system, saying that if a court�s decision was out of step with American popular opinion, it should be ignored.

There�s �no reason the American people need to tolerate a judge that out of touch with American culture,� Gingrich said on CBS� Face the Nation, referring to a case where a judge ruled that explicit references to religion were barred from a high school graduation ceremony. And Gingrich recently has said judges should have to explain some of their decisions before Congress.

Host Bob Schieffer asked Gingrich how he planned to enforce that. Would you call in the Capitol Police to apprehend a federal judge, he asked.

�If you had to,� Gingrich said. �Or you�d instruct the Justice Department to send the U.S. Marshall in.

This particular line of attack has been ongoing since the debate on Thursday, but is part and parcel of the Republicans ongoing assault against �activist� judges, meaning any judge who makes a ruling not in line with their ideology of the day, going back for nearly as long as I can remember from following such things, though even by those standards, Gingrich�s attacks are looking fairly radical.

In order to restore balance between Congress, the White House, and the courts, Gingrich recommended ignoring rulings, impeaching judges, subpoenaing justices to have them explain their rulings and, as a last resort, abolishing the courts altogether.

Well, I suppose once you start detaining people without trial, having courts to run those trials does seem kind of redundant. Still, this kind of idiocy should put to rest any lingering doubts about Newt being any kind of intellectual, though given the competition he�s currently running against, and the quality of the village media, that seems unlikely.


  1. "should put to rest any lingering doubts about Newt being any kind of intellectual"
    Oh, I fully accept that Newt is an "intellectual". A traitorously anti-democracy, fascist, totalitarianist intellectual, to be precise.

  2. I suspect once BO is wedged in for a second term, 'cause the other side are open about their insanity, he might take up some of the Newt's suggestions. Least regarding lower court rulings - the supremo's stuff he loves. Also I think there is a long ago precedent for the Newt's ignore stuff from the courts. The ethnic cleansing, man of the people, Andrew Jackson along with the peach state did so re: Worcester v. Georgia which became a nice tone setter for basic US ethos [ http://j.mp/sdhl7Q ]

  3. Geoff - I am certain there are even more recent examples, such as the Bush admin on warrantless wiretapping and some detention cases, but there is a major difference between an ethos of occasionally ignoring or bypassing the Courts and actually codifying that ability into the country's laws, not to mention singling out and punishing judges whose rulings you disagree with.