DeLay Apologizes for Schiavo Case Rhetoric

AP via Yahoo ^ | April 13, 2005 | Terence Hunt

[cyncooper]

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay apologized Wednesday for using overheated rhetoric on the day Terri Schiavo died, but refused to say whether he supports impeachment of the judges who ruled in her case.

~snip~

At a crowded news conference in his Capitol office, DeLay addressed remarks he made in the hours after the brain-damaged Florida woman died on March 31. "I said something in an inartful way and I shouldn't have said it that way and I apologize for saying it that way," DeLay told reporters.

~snip~

DeLay seemed at pains to soften, if slightly, his rhetoric of March 31, when Schiavo died despite an extraordinary political and legal effort to save her life.

"I believe in an independent judiciary. I repeat, of course I believe in an independent judiciary," DeLay said.

At the same time, he added, the Constitution gives Congress power to oversee the courts.

"We set up the courts. We can unset the courts. We have the power of the purse," DeLay said.

Asked whether he favors impeachment for any of the judges in the Schiavo case, he did not answer directly.

Instead, he referred reporters to an earlier request he made to the House Judiciary Committee to look into "judicial activism" and Schiavo's case in particular.

~snip~

[Central Scrutiniser]

CS's mantra is "rule of law" --- like a good German,

Please explain your intent for that statement. Are you calling me a nazi? Yes or no.

[Freedom Dignity n Honor]

Can't you read right?

Now look at your post that I first posted a comment to. What were you saying?

You were saying that people compare those who believe like you to the Nazis and so on and so on.

And I explained to you my reasoning for saying what I did.

I can't help it if you can not understand plain English.

I reiterate, Good day.

[lula]

There was no "murder" nor a "forced starvation" death. Death had been delayed for over a decade without any result. It was time to stop pretending.

You should change your tag line since you bought the big media lie!

[Cold Heat]

until they relearn the wisdom and practicality of self-restraint.

Precisely how they acted in this case, yet you condemn them because you disagree with the result.

Basically you are advocating judicial activism, but you cannot see this because of the noise.

BTW, just because a branch of government can do something, does not mean it is right, or even Constitutionally proper, or that they should do something because they can.

In addition, had there been time for arguments, the SCOTUS would have declared the legislation that Congress regurgitated unconstitutional in any case. Making your entire argument moot for this case. If Congress want to pass proper legislation regarding this issue, they can. But I don't see them jumping at the chance.

[Miss Behave]

Here we go, yet again.

Court ordered starvation (including nothing by mouth otherwise, period--not even ice chips or a swabbing on the lips,) of an innocent, defenseless fellow human being--footed and premised on, and justified in a decision at which was arrived through a basis of HEARSAY--which was not mentioned with regard to what Terri's "wishes" expressly were until SEVEN years after the fact and monies banked; completely absent *anything,* ANYTHING in writing from the innocent person (the human being ordered to be starved to death,) via the removal of a feeding tube (not an *artificial* *breathing* *machine*,) upon which MANY disabled people rely for daily sustenance, (just as we all rely on daily sustenance to live,) when a human being's body is NOT already shutting down in natural preparation for death, when court orders/summons (dictated to the sole reviewing judge of the case, who not ONCE visited Terri--the very same judge who ordered death to that very human through starvation,) are expressly ignored and evaded by overriding authorities, when the only de novo review was subsequently rebuked (and Congress was, at BASE, requesting that Terri Schiavo be given the same consideration given anyone convicted of Capital Punishment,) and the wholly MORAL position being one to always err on the side of LIFE (easy one--ask President Bush,)...

...the position taken be those who feel that the court-ordered decision to (VERY slowly and PAINFULLY) starve a human being to death was right and moral and justified, OR within rights of any sort...are, themselves, figuratively STARVED.

"...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

[COEXERJ145]

Of course he is. That is the standard reply whenever someone doesn't agree with them.

As a former professor of mine, who has studied the Nazis for almost 40 years, tells his class every semester; "Those who are always throwing out the 'Nazi' insult are usually closer to being Nazis than those that they accuse".

[COEXERJ145]

I'm quite awake thank you.

I just don't let my emotions overrun my brain and start making inane comments about my country dying or it being the end of everything.

In your profile you claim to be a Christian. Try showing some faith for once.

[lula]

THANK YOU!!!!

[Freedom Dignity n Honor]

That was just your professor's opinion not fact.

[Miss Behave]

You are MORE than welcome. Thank YOU.

[Fledermaus]

More signs of the lack of spine within the GOP.

I'm through with them.

[lula]

Perhaps you should read the bible, then you may understand what I meant. This IS a very emotional issue. If it weren't you would not have responded.

I have FAITH, but not in people. Thank you very much.

[Miss Behave]

Then go. Seriously.

[Hostage]

Precisely how they acted in this case,...

Are you deciding this for the rest of us?

...because you disagree with the result.

How do you know I disagree? Have I made a decision one way or the other?

Basically you are advocating judicial activism, but you cannot see this because of the noise.

Am I? What else am I doing here? You seem to know all about me.

[Cold Heat]

And he has never ruled on the issue of Michael Schiavo's guardianship.

He did rule on it, by not granting the challenges. Much time was spent reviewing testimony from all kinds of people who claimed he was unfit. The entire idea was for MS to turn this decision over to the court. The guardianship was at the root of it. It was the basis of the case.

G'nite.........

[Trinity_Tx]

"Who are you to decide the worth of anyone?

This WAS a case of JUDICIAL MURDER.

Tom Delay should have said the things he said. The GOP should have backed him 100%"


I would believe that too, if i believed that it was a matter of judging her quality of life (it wasn't) Or, what you said here: "If you were to have followed this case you would know she was not PVS. That is what ONE doctor diagnosed. This same doctor diagnosed another patient a policeman who is now walking and talking."

But it, too, is 100% false.

This is why sticking to the facts is critical. If you base your opinions on the false rumors and lies told here and on other agenda sites, then your opinions and your credibility becomes as worthless as the lies you base them on.

a) Dr Cranford is a scary dude, but he did NOT diagnose Weland as PVS, as you keep reading here.

b) He was NOT the only Dr to say Terri was PVS

c) In the 15 years since her coma, she had been diagnosed as PVS by every doctor and neurologist who examined her - except 2. Those 2 were the choices of her parents' attorneys, Hammesfahr and Maxwell, and they sucked out loud in terms of credibility (see my profile).

The affidavits you see are from docs who never saw her, many connected with Hammesfahr, and at least one who didn't even know she had ever had an EEG, much less that she had many of them, all saying there was no cerebral activity.

I don't know what her actual state was, nor do I think they should have pulled her tube under those circumstances, but repeating lies makes us look like morons, and it caused good men like Tom Delay to act on it and regret it.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

I just don't let my emotions overrun my brain and start making inane comments...

You don't let your emotions overrun your brain? You could have fooled me with this post regarding Tom Tancredo.

And I agree with lula, the country, or at least what it stood for took a hit in this case.

[JoJo Gunn]

I'm not talking about lunatic rhetoric. I'm talking about righteous wrath instead of trying to find common ground with those same lunatics.

The spineless get everything they "ask" for.

[Graymatter]

No society can spend millions on such cases of which there are thousands at any given time. It simply isn't possible. Nor would it have even been an issue at any time but recently since individuals cannot afford to pay for this only socialized medicine can.

That's really twisted. Socialized medicine can not pay for this, and socialized medicine is what lets your economic argument in the door. "We" should kill these people because "we" can't afford them because "we" have to pay for the care of others more deserving.
It's about the sanctity of life, it's not about money until socialism reduces human life to the level of a commodity.