Skip to comments.
DeLay Raises Possibility of Trying to Impeach Some Judges in Schiavo Case
AP ^
| 3/31/05
| Jesse J. Holland
Posted on 03/31/2005 3:11:22 PM PST by Crackingham
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340, 341-350 next last
To: randog
Probably called him up and said something like: "Isn't water is wonderful? Too much water. Too little water. Either way, the inconvience is gone."
To: Fledermaus
Congress has the control to define purview and even set terms of federal judges including the supreme Court. Define purview for lower courts, yes. But terms are defined by the Constitution, as is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Congress cannot overrule that.
To: MitchellC
"What the law just passed by Congress did was authorize a federal court to go back to square one and examine the actual merits of the Terri Schiavo case, not simply review whether the previous judge behaved illegally. Congress authorized the federal courts to retry this case from scratch -- "de novo" as the legislation says in legal terminology. Authorized, but did not require. The court took a narrow view of the legislation, and determined that since no new evidence was presented then there were no grounds to overturn the prior decision.
To: Spunky
I believe this was the inherent weakness in the legislation for Terri.
And it let the Federal courts off the hook. They took it and washed their hands of Terri.
To: the808bass
Your first post saying that right-wing religious conservative radical fundamentalist Christians (let me know if I left any out) were not in favor of the "nuclear option" left me all confuzzled.They didn't demand action on the nuclear option; they demanded that Terri Schiavo be saved. In that sense, they weren't in favor of the nuclear option.
Especially, as the first thing I did upon hearing of the death of Terri was to call my two senators and get their stance on the "nuclear option" and affirm my support of them should they choose to take it.
They won't. You spent your chips on this effort.
Now, of course, you are saying that it's the religious right's nuttiness that has scared off the moderates. Can't have it both ways, Grand Poohbah. I don't expect this to prohibit you from trying. Carry on apace.
This is one of the reasons I'm opusing out today: we've got a really high number of folks who either cannot or will not read the post, but will reply to what they think it said.
325
posted on
04/01/2005 5:04:41 AM PST
by
Poohbah
(I'm in the WPPFF)
To: Nuc1
We are not threatening to leave.OK, so I imagined all those f***ing posts saying exactly that.
We want action.
You got action, it didn't play out as you wished, and Jeb Bush wasn't going to start committing felonies to keep you happy.
As I read your piece you are the one who wants to leave.
I don't want to leave; I am merely forced to.
I'm giving you 100% leeway to do whatever it is you want. If you think you can survive without my vote, then you have no need to earn it.
326
posted on
04/01/2005 5:12:08 AM PST
by
Poohbah
(I'm in the WPPFF)
To: FreedomCalls
I didn't explain myself very well. This sums it up better.
If the Act only provided for jurisdiction consistent with Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Act would not be in violation of the principles of separation of powers. The Act, however, goes further. Section 2 of the Act provides that the district court: (1) shall engage in de novo review of Mrs. Schiavos constitutional and federal claims; (2) shall not consider whether these claims were previously raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings; (3) shall not engage in abstention in favor of State court proceedings; and (4) shall not decide the case on the basis of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted. Pub. L. 109-3, § 2. Because these provisions constitute legislative dictation of how a federal court should exercise its judicial functions (known as a rule of decision), the Act invades the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle...
There's more detail, but this is the gist of it. In other words, Congress did everything it could think of to predetermine the outcome of the case without actually stating so. And, yes, that is unconstitutional.
To: Non-Sequitur
Again, not according to this sentence: In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
328
posted on
04/01/2005 4:34:21 PM PST
by
Fledermaus
(I have a big truck)
To: followerofchrist
You know what? I am so sick and tired of being attacked when I make any sort of moderate stand or indicate that I don't totally believe one way or the other.
Attacked? No, sweatpea, you were called on a very stupid statement. Nothing different than what I have done with you before. Posting on Free Republic without doing any research is like jumping into a cage with hungry, efficient animals. If you can't handle being handed your ass when you say something completely stupid, then maybe it is time you left.
I guess you gotta be one way or the other, and you can't believe your "side" is wrong, or inconsistent, on any issue at any time.
You posted something without doing the first bit of research or, for that matter, thought and you have the nerve to whine? Oy vay! Tell me, exactly what did you expect for posting leftist pap? A hug and a kiss?
This includes moderation or being "in the middle."
The only thing you will find "in the middle" are yellow stripes and dead animals.
Do you have a link so that I can be on a MODERATE newsgroup?
Do your own homework.
329
posted on
04/01/2005 8:02:53 PM PST
by
wasp69
("You're done, Rather! No more 'Divine Right of Kings'!" - Oliver "Buckhead" Cromwell (sorta)
To: Crackingham; All
330
posted on
04/02/2005 12:16:43 PM PST
by
the invisib1e hand
(God rest Terri Schiavo. God save the rest of us.)
To: sinkspur
Gibbs worked for free, and the Schindler's got what they paid for.So sadly true.
331
posted on
04/02/2005 2:02:41 PM PST
by
beyond the sea
(Advanced Directive -- don't step on my blue suede shoes.)
Comment #332 Removed by Moderator
To: Fitzcarraldo
DO IT....
333
posted on
04/02/2005 2:06:38 PM PST
by
The Wizard
(DemonRATS: enemies of America)
To: Nuc1
'Judicial Review' as defined by John Marshall in 1803 is right out of Hamilton in The Federalist. Even Justice Scalia sees no problem with it. Without it, the Judiciate is impotent...with it, they are the guardians of The Constitution...even if Congress passes a law unanimously...if it usurps our rights under the Constitution then the Judiciate can rightfully declare it void.
334
posted on
04/02/2005 4:57:57 PM PST
by
Borges
To: westmichman
Do you want the Constitution interpreted by plebiscite or by the Judicary as is their function? Just because a majority of the Electorate want something doesn't mean it's Constitutional
335
posted on
04/02/2005 5:00:52 PM PST
by
Borges
To: Borges
Judges sometimes come up with opinions that have no relation to the constitution and in fact use international law as backup for their reasoning. These judges need to be impeached.
No where did I suggest that anything should be done that would go against the constitution, including judges.
336
posted on
04/02/2005 5:27:31 PM PST
by
westmichman
(Pray for global warming. Friend of Ronnie -(stolen from The Patriot))
To: westmichman
Impeaching judges for disagreeable decisions is a can of worms that would lead to chaos. There's no way even most Republicans in Congress would take part in it since it would have no chance at all of getting the needed votes and would antagonize the majority of the Electorate in taking up the time of Congress that should be engaged in the workable business of the country.
The key is to appoint Judges that share our values. Constitutional concepts like 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment' and 'Unreasonable Search and Seizure' are sufficiently broad that there will never be a consensus as to what they encompass. Either among us nor among Judges.
337
posted on
04/02/2005 8:26:15 PM PST
by
Borges
To: Borges
Until we get good judges installed, we will have to minimize the damage of those we have now. That means impeaching some of them. The more we get rid of now, and replace with good conservatives, the less we will have to take the drastic measure of impeachment in the future. We have the upper hand now. That may change as early as 2006. Now is the time. Courageous men like Tom Delay are ready to act. Will we stand with them?
338
posted on
04/02/2005 8:34:04 PM PST
by
balch3
To: balch3
Impeach for what? And besides you think you're going to get 67 votes in the Senate to convict a Judge for a decison? As opposed to a criminal act which is what impeachment is intended for? Be realistic.
339
posted on
04/02/2005 8:36:32 PM PST
by
Borges
To: Borges
You never know until you try. At the very least let's haul them before the judiciary committee and make them sweat under oath.
340
posted on
04/02/2005 8:39:45 PM PST
by
balch3
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340, 341-350 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson