Posted on 04/13/2005 8:21:32 PM PDT by 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~
(Excerpt) Read more at story.news.yahoo.com ...
Have you ever seen anyone so eager to be called a Nazi? LOL.
Keep us posted on what happens on Rush today re. DeLay. BTW - DeLay must be the greatest guy on the planet; you can tell by how much the other side hates his guts. Go, DeLay!!
Of course he does.
It's called 'baiting'. He justs wants to be able to run back to some other site and crow about how those awful 'Terri people' called him a Nazi and 'lost the argument'. It's juvenile, but there ya go...
Actually (pet word of mine), it describes something that can belong to one person, but can't be taken from that person and given to another. Even things (like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) that belong to one person can be taken from that one person, but taking "liberty" from a first person does not give "liberty" to a second. Likewise with "life." Likewise with "pursuit of happiness," and even "happiness" itself. Each person has it, or not. But you can't take your liberty and give it to an incarcerated person. You can't take your life and cause the dead to rise.
Sorta takes the raw emotional power away from the word "inalienable," since it doesn't exalt the thing being named. The word "inalienable" is just a sterile observation.
So, that is your argumentation style, I'd peg it at a 13 year old boy level. You are afraid to answer my question?
Thanks for exposing your lack of maturity when it comes to discussion, you have enlightened us all.
Thank you!!
And please allow me to take this time to repeat the info for others:
Tom DeLay did NOT apologize for his comments, he only apologized for the "inartful" way he said it, and Rush just said he is STILL fighting HARD for us. The liberal Washington Times had it wrong again.
Tom DeLay does need our support, and you can call him at 202-225-5951 and thank him for fighting judicial tyranny.
You can also call your Republican U.S. senators and congressperson, and tell them to support DeLay.
After I did all that, I even called the Republican Party and said that Republican politicians need to back DeLay.
I love my country. I hate what certain people are doing to it by making the Bill of Rights a dead letter.
Not baiting EV, you make veiled posts where you insinuate that someone is a nazi. When called on to say yes or no, you hide, duck and weave.
Afraid of libel?
Argue issues rather than throw bombs.
I'm off to work, off to the real world. Have a great day.
CORRECTION: I meant to say that Rush said the Washington POST had it wrong, not Washington Times. sorry
Rush correctly points out that DeLay stands by his stance but admits he "inartfully" stated it.
That's what the article says.
In addition Rush points out the statements regarding the President saying he considers DeLay a friend and how (as I pointed out to a poster early on who decided to bash Bush) the media tried to twist it to portray it differently.
The fact appears that DeLay has been persuaded to tone it down, which is advice I think many would be wise to heed (and rational discussions can be held over whether DeLay's position without the vitriol he exhibited and others exhibited toward him and his supporters).
The only ones I saw off and away to the races with over-reaction to what DeLay said here was not the "WPPFF crowd" that some seem obsessed with. It was the self-identified "other side". And now THEY want to act like others didn't get it.
Too funny.
Perhaps. But it still has great meaning.
Who can deny that Terri Schiavo's right to life was alienated from her?
Nothing sterile about that factual observation.
Well, there have been calls of "Nazi" and you yourself brought up brownshirts and armbands.
What's with the wide-eyed "they're pulling it out thin air" act?
EXCELLENT point.
I once did something very similar to that in real life myself and PURPOSELY because I was NOT going to apologize for the comments themselves which I meant and was unwilling to retract.
Did you just call the Washington Times "liberal"?
I'm sure glad you don't love me that much.
Matthew 25:31-46
The Son of Man Will Judge the Nations
31"When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy[c] angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34Then the King will say to those on His right hand, "Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, "Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' 40And the King will answer and say to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'
41"Then He will also say to those on the left hand, "Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.'
44"Then they also will answer Him,[d] saying, "Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?' 45Then He will answer them, saying, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' 46And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Bump to your post, EV. I think it's quite clear to most of us what and who is Nazi-like here. The pro-death crowd has no credible argument against it.
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.