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]

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?

There may be nothing to it. On the other hand, he is being investigated by the DA in Austin for utilizing PAC money illegally in the Texas redistricting fight; two of those involved in the PAC have already been indicted.

DeLay skates on the edge of the ice, and there are long knives out for him. That's why I think most of his GOP confreres are not going to stick their necks out on something like impeaching judges.

[westmichman]

"Holly Roling will not keep the Pubbies in power"

We only role holly at Christmas, but we don't inhale.

[Nuc1]

We are not threatening to leave. We want action. We want decency and morality restored to America. You know, criminals in jail, the constitution followed, international law not used to make court decisions, that kind of stuff. As I read your piece you are the one who wants to leave. It is certainly your right to do so. By the way, I will survive with or without the GOP because if they really aren't going to do anything with the power they have been given, what good are they?

[rodguy911]

You make a lot of good common sense. The problem with politics today is that the next two presidential candidates could spend somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion bucks to get elected by the time the cash has all been spent by 08. That means you need a third party with lots of bucks.

[Fred Nerks]

The MSM in Australia continuously referred to Terri as 'the brain-dead woman who is fighting for the right to die' ...

I daresay if a poll was held in Australia with the public so misinformed, the result would have been the same. I have printed out a history of the Schiavo/Schindler case and distributed it amongst a number of acquaintances and friends in Australia. They are profoundly shocked.

[eeriegeno]

Impeachment??? These judges, Michael Schiavo and Felos should be tried for murder!

If someone would have blown Terri's head off with a shotgun yesterday at 9AM, how quickly would that person have been charged with murder? Greer, Michael Schiavo, and the lovable lawyer continued to starve her for 24 more hours until she died. What is the difference???????

The first someone murdered her by pulling a trigger, the second set of someones murdered her by denying her food and water!!!!

[ContraryMary]

That clause deals with jurisdiction only. It does not give Congress the right to tell the Courts HOW to conduct in-court procedures.

[Nita Nupress]

To Republican politicians in D.C.:

It's time for the nuclear, constitutional option. Stop yacking about it and DO IT.

Look, we'll even help you. This is a long acting type of gonad-enhancement and, once injected in the muscle, it's released in the body on a more or less continuous basis. As one website said, "This is a drug for size and strength and is given to normalize depressed testosterone levels."

I promise it'll just hurt a little while.

[westmichman]

I'm lovin it!! oops, is that patent infringement?

[virgil]

I think this is just lip service

[RecallMoran]

If Congress has any juevos, it will look for a collision with the judicial branch under Article III. Regardless of what you think of the policy behind the statute, the federal judiciary told Congress to pound sand. In the 11th Circuit decision, Judge Birch ripped Congress up one side and down the other in intemperate rhetoric for directing a de novo hearing. THe federal courts viewed this case as mainly a @#$% measuring contest between the legislative and judicial branches. We live in an age of an imperial judiciary, not just in the Schiavo case but many others (e.g. citing foreign law in decisions, abortion, etc.) It has gotten to a point where it does not matter what a freely elected legislature enacts because in the end the judiciary controls what is law and what is not. Congress has a real problem on its hands and it has got to take action or be dismissed as irrelevant.

Congress can under Article III set jurisdictional limits for the federal courts. The problem here is deep and starts in law school. Law students are and were well trained in parsing language and manipulating language to effectuate their own policy preferences rather than apply the law as enacted. That's one reason why so many judges "grow" in office and disappoint conservatives who appointed them. The long term solution to this problem is for Congress to assert itself and redefine federal court jurisdiction. The Schiavo case is one prime example, but so would many others, like using foreign law to subordinate the will of the American people.

If COngress does nothing, this problem simply gets worse and we will be living in an oligarchy, assuming we haven;t already arrived.

[Fred Nerks]

Top Neurologist's Report on Terri Released:


Spinal Exam: The patient's exam from a spinal perspective is abnormal. The degree of limitation of range of motion, and of spasms in her neck, is consistent with a neck injury. The abnormal sensory exam, that shows evidence of her hypoxic encephalopathic strokes (right side sensory responses are different from left) also suggests a spinal cord injury at around the level of C4. Her physical exam and videotapes also suggest a spinal cord injury is also present, as she has much better control over he face, head, and neck, than over her arms and legs. This reminds one of a person with a spinal cord injury who has good facial control, but poor use of arms and legs. It is possible that a correctable spinal abnormality such as a herniated disk may be found that could be treated and result in better neurological functioning. This should be looked for, as may be treatable. Thus, there may be an injured disk or spinal cord; the disk injury is more treatable, the spinal cord injury, if present without a disk injury, may be more difficult to treat. A person with a spinal cord injury and hypoxic encephalopathy will need different treatment and rehab recommendations than one who just has a hypoxic encephalopathic.

Interestingly, I have seen this pattern of mixed brain (cerebral) and spinal cord findings in a patient once before, a patient who was asphyxiated.

http://www.newsmax.com/

TERRI HAD A SPINAL INJURY - CONGRESS IS SPINELESS

[Aetius]

The majority will only see the Democrats as less threatening than the Religious Right if the Left wins the public relations battle. Now granted, they have a huge advantage in this because of their domination of the mainstream media (who still reach more people than any other single source), but if the GOP/Right is going to let that discourage them then they might as well surrender on pretty much all issues.

The fact of the matter is that on most of the hot-button, contentious social and cultural issues the public holds conservative views. They oppose racial preferences. They oppose amnesty for illegal aliens. They support reductions in legal immigration. They oppose abortion on demand. They oppose bilingual education. They support Second Amendment rights. They oppose gay marriage (and civil unions in many, if not most, states). They have no problem with public nativity scenes and prayers before highschool football games.

The Right/GOP needs to do a better job of simply pointing out the truth of the situation, and by that I mean they need to point out that it is not conservative Christians who are trying to impose their values on everyone else, but instead that it is the Left doing that via the judiciary.

I mean, which is a true, or worse, imposition of values: the people voting by large majorities to ban gay marriage, or gay marriage and civil uions, OR as few as 4 or 5 people imposing gay marriage/civil unions on an entire state or nation? A community collectively deciding that they'd like a nativity scene at the local city hall, OR a Court telling them that such a move is forbidden by an Establishment Clause that forbids Congress from creating a state religion? A state deciding it will not allow the gruesome partial birth abortion procedure in except in the rarest of cases, OR a federal judge throwing that law out because it isn't written so broadly as to render it meaningless? Who is doing the imposing here?

If the public ever realized just how much the far-Left relies on the Courts to impose what can't be won in a fair and proper democratic fight, then they'd see that the Courts are much more of a threat to their values than the evil Religious Right, because in fact many of the values of the RR are in fact mainsream, majority valuse of Americans in general.

And best of all, they might just realize that there is such a thing as voting with their feet. If one doesn't like laws in Texas, then they can move. If one doesn't like the law in Mass, then they can move. New York and Mass and Calif are in no danger of having conservative social policy imposed by the Religious Right. All the RR wants is that the Courts not deprive them of the right to have policies reflective of their views implemented as public policy in the states where their values are the mainstream mores.

[Pelham]

Good points.

[rodguy911]

I think you are right on it Fred the evidence all points to that.

[Nita Nupress]

I'm lovin it!! oops, is that patent infringement?

Well, I think they could use a little Patton infringement.

:-D

[FreedomCalls]

That clause deals with jurisdiction only. It does not give Congress the right to tell the Courts HOW to conduct in-court procedures.

Nonsense. Congress has the power to alter in-court procedures by passing a law and has done so many times. Here's just one example. Here is a public law passed by Congress and entered into the U.S. Code that modifies the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in regard to jury selection. First the law:

28 U.S.C. 1870.

In civil cases, each party shall be entitled to three peremptory challenges. Several defendants or several plaintiffs may be considered as a single party for the purposes of making challenges, or the court may allow additional peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly.

Now the relevant part of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as it appears in Chapter VI, Rule 47(b).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule47.htm

Rule 47. Selection of Jurors

(a) Examination of Jurors
The court may permit the parties or their attorneys to conduct the examination of prospective jurors or may itself conduct the examination. In the latter event, the court shall permit the parties or their attorneys to supplement the examination by such further inquiry as it deems proper or shall itself submit to the prospective jurors such additional questions of the parties or their attorneys as it deems proper.

(b) Peremptory Challenges.
The court shall allow the number of peremptory challenges provided by 28 U.S.C. 1870.

(c) Excuse.
The court may for good cause excuse a juror from service during trial or deliberation.

[TheHound]

I agree. I not sure what a "juevos" is. Is that "balls"?

[rodguy911]

Excellent post, great job!
It's amazing just how mainstream most conservative values are.