As he works to rev up his conservative base in Iowa with just two weeks to go until the state's caucuses, Newt Gingrich is launching a full-throated assault on a reliable GOP target: judges.

There is little love for the judicial branch among the Republicans seeking the White House. But Gingrich's ridicule has been, by far, the sharpest and the loudest. And it's taken a central role as his campaign struggles to stay atop polls in Iowa, a state where irate social conservatives ousted three judges who legalized same-sex marriage.

"I commend the people of Iowa for sending a strong signal that when judges overreach that they can find a new job," Gingrich told about 200 supporters who turned out to hear him speak in Davenport, Iowa, on Monday.

Gingrich has suggested that judges who issue what he termed "radical" rulings out of step with mainstream American values should be subpoenaed before Congress to explain themselves before facing possible impeachment. As president, he said, he'd consider dispatching U.S. marshals to round up judges who refuse to show voluntarily. In extreme cases, whole courts could be eliminated.

In the final debate before voters weigh in at the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, Gingrich called the courts "grotesquely dictatorial." He cast the fight in stark religious terms reminiscent of the culture wars, in which a secular, legal elite was encroaching on religious liberties.

The targets of Gingrich's strongest derision: the West Coast's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a perennial punching bag for the right, and a federal judge in Texas who banned prayer in a public school.

Enforcement by the state attorney general against securities fraud doesn't pre-empt private common-law claims of negligence against investment companies, New York's top court ruled Tuesday.

The Court of Appeals rejected J.P. Morgan Investment Management's argument that New York's Martin Act gives the attorney general exclusive authority over fraudulent securities and investment practices. The court said Assured Guaranty (UK) Ltd. can sue J.P. Morgan.

"We agree with the attorney general that the purpose of the Martin Act is not impaired by private common-law actions that have a legal basis independent of the statute because proceedings by the attorney general and private action have the same goal — combating fraud and deception in securities transactions," Judge Victoria Graffeo wrote.

Assured claimed breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence, alleging J.P. Morgan invested heavily in risky mortgage-backed securities while committing to a conservative investment policy for reinsurance company Orkney RE II PLC, whose obligations Assured guaranteed. After the market crashed, Assured had to cover Orkney losses.

"Here, the plain text of the Martin Act, while granting the attorney general investigatory and enforcement powers and prescribing various penalties, does not expressly mention or otherwise contemplate the elimination of common-law claims," Graffeo wrote. The unanimous ruling upheld a midlevel court, which had reversed a judge.