The idea does not involve any of those things. It is Gingrich against judicial supremacy, as posted here on Sept. 6. It is the way our Constitution was understood by everyone for 150 years.
The NY Times editorial says:
In any campaign season, voters are bound to hear Republican candidates talk about “activist judges” — jurists who rule in ways that the right wing does not like. But Newt Gingrich, who is leading in polls in Iowa, is taking the normal attack on the justice system to a deep new low.No, the court's attempt to micro-manage the schools did cause chaos, and the schools were closed.
He is using McCarthyist tactics to smear judges. His most outrageous scheme, a plan to challenge “judicial supremacy,” has disturbing racial undertones. If he is serious about his plan, a President Gingrich would break the balance of power that is fundamental to our democracy.
The plan’s centerpiece is an attack on the landmark 1958 ruling in Cooper v. Aaron, in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Arkansas had a duty to follow federal law. ... Unless the court acted as the final arbiter about the Constitution’s meaning, as Marbury v. Madison instructed, chaos would prevail. It was one of the court’s most important decisions. In Mr. Gingrich’s twisted view, Congress and the executive branch have for too long cowered before the court.
It sounds crazy, but the NY Times cries racism when it really promotes racial animosity, because that animosity justifies the liberal social programs that they really want.
Cooper v. Aaron was in 1947. Marbury v. Madison was 1803. How is it that an 1803 decision "instructed" something that no one noticed until 1947? There is no such instruction, of course.
Gingrich's position has nothing to do with racism or McCarthyism anyway. His position on the court is the simple consequence of the US Constitution being the supreme law of the land. The President and the Congress take oaths to the Constitution, not to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution.