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 ...
oops...scare = scarce. Mea culpa.
You mean that meaningless and ineffective CYA bill that threw the case back to the courts, where the problem is and was in the first place?
I wouldn't be braggin' too much about that if I were you.
Yes, it is disgusting.
sw
I respect what Delay has done for the GOP and believe he can be of further use AND don't believe he has done anything for which he should lose support. Unlike some here now attacking the Bushes for not doing "enough" I don't turn on people for making a mistake. Thus, though I believe his comments were a mistake that is not enough to throw him under the bus.
But the main reason I support Delay is because the Liberals despise him even more than they do Bush.
There was nothing that could have been done that was not done for TS. Certainly nothing the "liberal" republicans didn't do could have "saved" her. Essentially everyone stood aside and let the GOP make a fool of itself. As thanks the Ultras are attacking it for trying to do what they wanted.
Because the federal constitution does not cover local judges as being impeachable by the Senate. Delay was not talking about impeaching local judges.
This particular GOP CYA talking point is a dog that just ain't gonna hunt...at least with those who reference fundamental human rights as their political and legal compass.
Well I'm not GOP so I don't care what 'talking points' they choose to use or not. The only things that guide me are a strong belief in Christ, fundamental human rights, and the limitations as outlined in the Constitution of these United States. Congress had no right nor position to involve themselves in a simple guardianship case. Justice Scalia in the Cruzan decision was clear and Madison was even clearer in Federalist #45
'What we wanted', all we wanted, was for the Chief Executive to do his sworn duty to protect his own citizens and uphold the Constitution.
A drink of water for a helpless woman is not alot to ask.
All we heard were excuses.
The Constitution applies in every case.
You are vividly demonstrating the problem. Our courts and our elected officials are IGNORING the Constitution.
You, and they, are straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.
ROFL LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Those who stand on the side of NOT murdering someone have lost their moral compass?
Here's hoping I'm really and truly misunderstanding what you're trying to say.
It wouldn't have saved Terri anyway.
sw
Since you don't know what de novo means or understand that the Congress has no power to order the courts to do anything you don't understand what happened.
All it could do was expand the courts' jurisidiction so that they could consider a case typically outside that jurisdiction. Thus, it had the constitutional power to vote to allow the district court jurisdiction even though it was a mistake to do it. However it could not tell them How to do it or demand anything of it.
I am not sure about exactly what that "subpoena" meant but whatever it meant it had no bearing on the obvious lack of Congressional authority to impeach a local judge. Congress could vote for contempt of Congress for ignoring a legitimate subpoena. Perhaps a review of the Constitution would clarify your misunderstandings about Congress' powers here.
IF you think it's fine to donate to this group, then you have indeed lost your moral compass.
sw
to stay the hell out of our personal family tragadies and away from our sick beds? Painful decisions that families have to make in some end of life medical cases are not the buisness of Government. Nor are they any of yours.
Maybe you could kindly point out where the millions for such cases can be obtained? Oh, and don't say the "taxpayers" they are tapped out.
I'll give you one thing. The 436 political hacks in Washington are ignoring the Constitution. Have been doing it for over 100 years. So we agree on that. However, not all courts are ignoring the Constitution. I realize the Whigs don't care too much for the 10th Amendment, but for conservatives it's still there. And apparently, to Justice Scalia it's still there as well...
I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide - including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life-and-death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable. (emphasis added) Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497, U.S. 261 (1990)
Just embrace that in trying to change the intent of the Constitution and destroy the limitations that disagree with your warped belief system, you have become what you claim to hate. A liberal.
No "all you wanted" was for the Chief Exective act like a Third World generalissimo and overthrow the rule of Law. Cases like this are allowed to terminate every day without controversy. Are you really unaware of this?
I'm not letting my family go into the poor house keeping me alive in a PVS. Nor do I want them taking me home, changing me, bathing me, lifting me, feeding me, combing my hair, and giving me balloons to follow around to see if I'm "in there"...I want them to get on with their lives and LIVE.
My living will had better be honored!
sw
They have thrown over almost every principle conservatives have touted: limited federal government; opposition to judicial activism; federalism; socialized medicine. And appear to be blissfully unaware of 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.