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 ...
They yielded to emotion. They went to a place beyond reason. Some haven't returned.
Stupidest thing I've ever heard you say, and that's saying alot.
By your standard, it would be lawful to starve babies to death.
Welcome to '68 grunt World'...
Actually the 2DCA in Florida found that Micheal Schiavo was conflicted because there was money involved and he had broken the marriage contract. Contracts, marriage or otherwise, apparently are just pieces of paper to you.
Moreover, Florida law prohibits any guardian from being appointed who "may have a conflcit of interest". Which is why Terri Sciavos death was court ordered. When states issue orders condemning citizens to death American jurisprudence and precedent requires judicial review on the federal level. When you argue against that, you argue against the Constitution and individual rights.
No it isn't "thought out" at all. Just another quotation which does not make any point wrt TS who had every legal protection possible. In fact it is a typical attempt by people like you to pull the wool over peoples' eyes.
We disagree on that point.
My point is that the content of a ruling cannot be dictated by Congress other than what is already prescribed under the laws.
I haven't asserted that Congress dictates outcome of a case.
I suppose you could argue that changing a law could rein in the Judiciary. But I don't think that is what is intended.
The primary power that the Congress and state legislators have is the making of laws. And making laws can radically change civil and criminal procedure, as well as civil and criminal causes of action. See, e.g., the reformation of the model penal code regarding the insanity defense following the Hinckley trial.
I'm not associating "insanity" with events of the Schiavo trial, but am citing Congressional action in the wake of the Hinckley trial to support the proposition that Congress has prospective power over courts. It also has retrospective power, and has impeached judges.
I think Chris Reeves would refute that statement, he fought every day to live in a way which I'm pretty sure he would have said he didn't want before his accident?
What say you?
No she didn't. Greer made errors that, in any capital case, would have meant he was overturned. Why the state oredering the death of non criminals should be given less scrutiny by the appeals courts than capital murder cases is beyond me.
God Bless you EV. You are a great defender of the life God created.
I am glad to know though, that this thread got moved to the SBR, I think that says alot.
Read FR's mission statement when you need to remind yourself that FR is pro-life and a great place to be! And remember, the majority of FR posters agree with you.
I'll take the word of the nurse who cared for Terri for four months over yours, thanks.
Terri lit up when she entered the room. Laughed at her dumb jokes. Ate jello cubes smuggled in to her in defiance of her alleged husband's demands that she be fed nothing by mouth, etc.
But again, your argument is a red herring anyway, since the right to life is inalienable, according to the Constitution.
You ought to read it sometime.
Your posts are so lame they are not even interesting. "I know you are but what am I" responses didn't even work in high school.
Pretensions are not going to get you very far here.
Are you saying that other statutory or common law rules are rendered unenforceable to the extent that they affect or govern the enumerated "basic rights" (i.e., "to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property")?
Hey Evie, babies reach for the fork from the first moment. 'Course the forks is soft and round with and nice red tip. Perhaps that is your problem. Bottle feed and shoved in your face. You are so 'owned' EVie.
Y'know, I've long considered you a disruptive force, shrill and most caricaturish. I'm open-minded, unlike you, and will try, again, a suggestion. Your contributions are counterproductive to your causes. When you begin to receive ridicule on a thread just let your contribution stand and don't contribute anymore unless a post is addressed to you. Thats rather simple, I believe.
Thank you very much for the encouragement and the reminder. I need it sometimes...
Too much lying going on for me. I don't believe a word any of the 'emotional ones' say.
Are you 100% sure that Terri had "nothing going on upstairs" as you put it? Are you 100% sure Terri wanted to be starved to death? I mean, so sure that you would stake the life of someone near and dear to you on it?
A simple yes or no question.
A couple of things:
#1. Chris Reeves did not want to be kept alive by machines and only agreed to do so after his wife asked him.
#2. Chris Reeves had the money to have the kind of full time care required that did not burden and bankrupt his wife and family.
#3. I probably should have clarified that the people whose bedside I've stood at didn't know I was there and never would know I was there. They were severely brain damaged from strokes, etc. I don't think there are many of us who would wish to be kept alive merely for the sake of being kept alive when we don't have cognitive abilities.
I don't need you to tell me how to post, thanks.
Every post you've ever made to me has dripped with sarcasm and hate. If everyone here posted like you do to me, this place would be DU redux...
I guess now it is, "well, if you have the money to pay for care, fine, if not, off with your head!" See #746
Unbelievable!
Yes.
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.