Update: Never mind. Kim Jong Il bumped me.
On Monday morning, shortly after 7 a.m. ET, I will be on MSNBC’s Morning Joe to discuss Newt Gingrich’s ideas on judges.
As regular readers will know, I deeply share Gingrich’s stated goal of combating the myth of judicial supremacy, and I’m surely among the 5% (probably the 1%) of lawyers and legal commentators who would most vigorously embrace the theoretical legitimacy of most of the aggressive ideas that his campaign’s “white paper” outlines. My specific concern, as set forth in my posts last Friday and in one or more posts to come on Monday, is that Gingrich’s proposal to abolish judgeships is constitutionally unsound and politically foolish (I’m referring to the politics of presidential governance, not of campaigning) and would undermine his ability to achieve readily attainable and much more significant progress in the war on judicial imperialism by the simple measure of getting good justices and judges confirmed. More generally, I fail to see the strategic savvy or practical wisdom in the set of ideas that Gingrich seems most eager to press.