DeLay Raises Possibility of Trying to Impeach Some Judges in Schiavo Case

AP ^ | 3/31/05 | Jesse J. Holland

[Crackingham]

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on Thursday blamed Terri Schiavo's death on what he contended was a failed legal system and he raised the possibility of trying to impeach some of the federal judges in the case. "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," said DeLay, R-Texas.

But a leading Democratic senator said DeLay's comments were "irresponsible and reprehensible." Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said DeLay should make sure that people know he is not advocating violence against judges.

DeLay, the second-ranking House GOP lawmaker, helped lead congressional efforts 10 days ago to enact legislation designed to prod the federal courts into ordering the reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube. He said the courts' refusal to do just that was a "perfect example of an out of control judiciary."

Asked about the possibility of the House's bringing impeachment charges against judges in the Schiavo case, DeLay said, "There's plenty of time to look into that."

President Bush expressed sympathy to Schiavo's parents.

"I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others," he said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to join DeLay in criticizing the courts. "We would have preferred a different decision from the courts ... but ultimately we have to follow our laws and abide by the courts," McClellan said.

Joining DeLay in taking issue with the judiciary was Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who said, "The actions on the part of the Florida court and the U.S. Supreme Court are unconscionable." Also, GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina said the case "saw a state judge completely ignore a congressional committees subpoena and insult its intent" and "a federal court not only reject, but deride the very law that Congress passed."

DeLay said he would make sure that the GOP-controlled House "will look at an arrogant and out of control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president."

[sinkspur]

It sounds to me like DeLay has the leadership capacity to stir up a few votes, and maybe even to get Americans to see this whole situation a little more clearly.

He doesn't. DeLay is up to his neck in ethics charges; whether true or not, he's compromised.

I like Tom DeLay but I think he's going to get nowhere here.

He won't have the support of George W. Bush, for sure. Bush is getting killed in the polls already, and he needs some support to get Social Security through.

[rodguy911]

I've been saying this for three days on here. We,the hard right of the party have become the black constituents of the Republican party. We will and are getting the same treatment that the rats give the black voters of which they get an astonishing 91%. There is no reason for the pubbies to do anything for us at all. We are going no where and we have no choice but to vote them in over and over. I'm not saying it's right I'm just telling it like it is.

[livius]

Ah, sinky, I see you've moved on from the Catholic Church and are now trying to destroy conservative Republicans.

[Conservative4Ever]

I like him too as I posted earlier. I am just waiting for the republicans to get a real backbone.

Red

[Spunky]

"SHALL is mandatory language, under the law

Ok, I give. You probably know more than I do when it comes to legal terminology. :-)

[Fred Nerks]

Thank you for your reply. It would seem then that the American justice system will forever remain blighted - unless the details of this grotesque issue is widely disseminated. The MSM won't do it, but trust me, the Net will!

"The American people, in every poll taken since the vote, opposed it."

Why? Because the MSM presented Terri as 'the brain-dead woman who is fighting for the right to die' ?

Welcome to the New World order a la Scientology, eugenics as espoused by the Third Reich. The 'American People' will have cause for huge regret. Your MSM reminds me of the Volkische Beobachter.

[ruoflaw]

I keep hearing the democrats saying things about Delay and ethics charges but I don't recall what those charges are. I thought it was just another down and dirty liberal democrat trick. So, are you saying that this is more than mere innuendo? If so, could you list the charges?

[northernlightsII]

Maybe more people are realizing that now.

[westmichman]

You are right, we are not going anywhere, but unless the hard right is fired up for an election, the soft republicans don't have the gumption to do the work needed to get the Pubbies elected/re-electd.

[Nuc1]

You should ignore these types of comments. If they want to pick up their marbles and go, let them. Without the religious right the Republicans would be a 30-40% minority party. We have supported them for a very long time and now we expect results. Soon we will see who really supports our nation and who are just political panderers. The RINOs come to mind.

[rodguy911]

IMHO the rats have always had their favorite pubbie whipping boy. When Newt was around they picked him. Now that he is gone Tom Delay has obviously gotten the nod. I don't think it matters at all what he does. It will always be wrong and all the MSM'ers who get rat talking points will always echo what their masters tell them about Delay. So the average person taking the trolley to work will see Delay as the next anti-Christ. But that does not make it so.

[nightdriver]

"One words: Impeach."

Impeach, hell!

To the gallows with 'em!

It'll give entirely new meaning to the term "hanging judge!"

[rwfromkansas]

True. The Schindler sucky lawyers didn't help matters much.

[Cboldt]

Sorry for being short with you. This case bothers me deeply. I don't how to fix the system. A just system depends on just stewards. The judicial process contains enough technicalities that it can make any decision it wants, principle be damned. That isn't justice. This case certainly isn't justice, and a legally innocent human life was terminated without just cause.

[Nick Danger]

I think the public will ask why the federal judges were involved in the first place. They were, and still are, opposed to federal involvement by the Congress or the Federal Judiciary at all.

You know and I know that these polls reflect nothing but people echoing back what they've heard on the news. Which is that a loving husband's attempt to give his comatose, brain-dead wife a Death With Dignity is being fouled up by a bunch of crazed Bible-thumpers.

That's what people think they know. And I'm not surprised they are against it.

It will be six months or a year before a few more salient facts about this case percolate into people's heads. Most people today are surprised when told that the husband has been living with another woman for years... a Catholic woman who won't marry him if he's divorced; he needed for Terri to die.

Then there's the money. A million dollars awarded to care for Terri, but spent on lawyering to get her killed.

Then there's the doctors. For every one who says she's in a persistent vegetative state, there's another one who says she's not, or that more tests would be needed to make sure. Were the tests done before they decided to "let her die?" No.

Very few people know these things.

Just wait. Remember Bill Clinton? He was too popular to convict in the Senate. A year later, everybody said he was scum. This is gonna be like that. The media has had its fun spreading the leftist Gospel, and right now most people assume that was the truth, but in the end The People always figure it out. I have great faith they will do so again.

[garbanzo]

Now let us see some action on this front.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

[Servant of the 9]

You should ignore these types of comments. If they want to pick up their marbles and go, let them. Without the religious right the Republicans would be a 30-40% minority party. We have supported them for a very long time and now we expect results. Soon we will see who really supports our nation and who are just political panderers. The RINOs come to mind.

And with the religious right, the Republicans are gonna be a 15% to 20% minority party because centrists and even center right people are gonna see the Dimocrats as less dangerous.

Dims like Hillary are already triangulating well to the right of Bush on Border Security and Fiscal Prudence. Holly Roling will not keep the Pubbies in power.

SO9

[AlbionGirl]

rodguy, I'm not sure I fully agree with you. I think the religious right wields a bit of power, because they're great grassroots activists. They're true believers, hard workers, and American to the core. But in order to see how much power they actually wield they probably have to be prepared to leave, but where will they/we go? We have no place, and that's why a viable Third Party would produce a world of good. But when I say viable, I mean viable. Smart leaders, good PR people and all the rest. Not sure that will ever happen but it would be the impetus needed for both parties to begin an examination of conscience.

I'm a democrat at heart, but I can't go there, they're insane, really, truly insane! And, oh, how I long for a good, solid, loyal opposition to the Republicans. Good for them, good for us, good for the Country, without that we're in big trouble. A loyal opposition party is absolutely necessary for a healthy republic.

We may be witnessing a historical watershed moment here. It is impossible for me to believe that we are a nation on a future course the likes of which we witnessed today. If the America that de Toqueville knew, that he descibed as being great because she was good goes down in flames, the whole world goes down with her.

[Aetius]

You're right about the Courts being out of control, but I don't see any relief. The Sup Court gave itself judicial review, and its supposedly co-equal Executive and Legislative branches have rarely challenged them.

Judicial supremacy has been going on long enough now that is has received a certain level of acceptance from both the other branches of govt and the people. This is unfortunate, but its true. Consider how people consistently tell pollsters how they support all sorts of restrictions on abortion -- partial birth, late-term, post-first trimester, outside of rape/incest/life of mother -- yet turn around and voice support for keeping the Roe decision that makes impossible all of those mainstream restrictions. Now part of that is due to simple ignorance on people's part that Roe (or at least the subsequent reading of it by judges) is so all-emcompassing, but I think part of it is an unfortunate tendency by many people to treat SCOTUS decisions as though they had been inscribed on stone tablets and carried down the mountain by Moses.

Another part of it is, to be frank, that some politicians simply like having the Courts usurp power from them because it lets them off the hook. It allows them to say "the courts have spoken, its now a matter of settled law, time to move on." So Republicans are free to give lip service to the conservatives who elect them, but then proclaim helplessness when the Courts hand one victory after another to the Left in the Culture War. As you say, I'll bet many Republicans enjoy this as they harbor an animosity towards Christian conservatives, and find it to be a source of shame that they must rely on such rubes to win elections. You are correct in that many in the party won't hesitate to chastise social conservatives if they fail to turn out, but also refuse to actually do any of the things they promised in seeking their votes.

I hate to be pessmistic, but I find optimism on this issue almost impossible to feel. Frist will fail to force a rules change. He'll either back down before an attempt is made, or come up short in trying to get McCain/Hagel/Specter/Collins/Snowe/Ohio Senator to join the battle. It will be portrayed as a humiliating defeat, and that will embolden the Left/Dems to be more brazen in not allowing up or down votes for good judges.

And really, there is no guarantee even if Bush is able to get up or down votes for all of his judges. I mean, just look at the combined record of Reagan and Bush I. Between them they picked two good Sup Court justices -- Scalia and Thomas -- two who are increasingly worthless on social/cultural issues in O'Connor and Kennedy, and one complete disaster in David Souter. That's 2/5, a poor 40% average. Granted, if Bork hadn't been borked, then it'd be better, but still not nearly as good as the perfect 100% record of Democrats in picking horrible judges. Whereas Republicans often screw up and pick bad judges, the Democrats never mistakenly pick good judges.

I don't know what it will take to make the public demand something be done about the judiciary. The inevitable imposition of gay marriage or civil unions nationwide by the Sup Court might do it, but even on that I have my doubts. If SCOTUS is smart about it, they will go the Vermont route and be so kind as to offer the state's a choice between gay marriage and civil unions, just so long as its one or the other. This would take advantage of the somewhat inexplicable, nonsensical, and contradictory position many hold of 'gay marriage-no, civil unions-yes'. Such a decision would be immediately deemed a moderate, mainstream compromise by the media, all Democrats, and many Republicans. It would find support with the people in many states, including the opinion-forming ones of NY and California. That it would be no different than an explict imposition of gay marriage, using the word 'marriage', to all of those states (probably a majority of the 50) whose people and legislators would reject any legal recognion of same-sex unions if given a choice -- like 10 states did last year including the close battleground states of Ohio, Missouri, and Michigan -- would be irrelevant. And once people are conditioned to support civil unions even in the Reddest states, then it won't take long for people to realize it makes little sense to preserve the word 'marriage' as between a man and a woman, but not the institution, then the Left will get the word too and their victory will be complete.

Then again, SCOTUS really has no reason to fear a public backlash for going too far, as we've sat back and taken abortion on demand, citizen status for illegal aliens, consulting foreign law; so they'll probably go the Mass route and impose gay marriage and leave no room for a euphemistic substitute.

I mean, it'd be great if we had a President and Congress bold enough to openly defy the order and render it void, but what chance is there of that? I'd love it personally, as it would force a long-overdue national discussion about the proper role of the Judiciary and how far they have strayed from the role envisioned by the Founders. I know some say this would be an invitation to chaos by undermining respect for the Courts and their authority. But the Courts have earned contempt, and very quickly the people would see that the Republic hasn't collapsed in the face of an ignored SCOTUS decision. And if we are left with a situation where the President and Congress only enforce decisions they accept as Constitutional, then they'd be reasserting their legitimate role as a protector of the Constitution.

[rodguy911]

That's a dam good point. I guess we do have some value.