Here's one take on that Newt paper at Newt.org:
Ultimately, however, the most frightening thing about Gingrich’s proposal isn’t its direct conflict with the Constitution, but the implications of such a violation of the Constitution for a fair and impartial judiciary. The framers protected judges from exactly this kind of intimidation because they knew that judges cannot be trusted to enforce unpopular laws or to extend the law’s protection over unpopular groups if they constantly have to watch their backs. At the end of the day, Gingrich’s proposal is nothing more than another sign of the right’s utter contempt for the Constitution and the law.Smartest-guy-in-the-room-itis. Look at him go.
Update (Friday a.m.): An excerpt from Jeffrey Simpson's column today, a fitting reminder of how such right wing hostility toward the courts is playing out here:
Speaking of judges, the Conservative chair of the parliamentary witch-hunt committee into the CBC and its expenses – a committee egged on by the ravers at Sun TV and its owner, Pierre Karl Péladeau – had the audacity, presumably born of a mixture of ignorance and arrogance, to insist that a judge whose ruling displeased him be hauled before the committee to explain the ruling.