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 ...
Confidence man? Sounds like Dr. Keyes!
EV, you are a pearl, you never change, just the same old invective, all heat, no light. Ping me next time you opus.
Have you ever stood at the bedside of someone when the doctors told you there was no hope? Someone hooked up to machines or feeding tubes?
As we get older, sadly, most of us have. All too often. And this kind of situation has been handled between families and doctors for longer than either of us has been alive.
I've yet to meet someone who says they wish to be kept alive by machines or tubes. And every single time I've stood next to such an unfortunate patient, someone has nudged me and said "don't let that happen to me."
So it doesn't really matter what I think. It matters that several judges and courts heard the evidence and decided it was valid. And since most everyone any of us has evern known has felt the same way, it rang true to them.
Of course you can't provide the specific placement of that power under Article II Section 2 where this power is found. Of course you can't but don't let that bother you. Statements, words practically in stone, and simple facts don't matter apparently. I would refer this statement to you
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
If you would bother to read where that came from (any conservative should know the source)and note the author, you would see facts and limitations of power do matter.
Well, not really - the test is not whether yellowdoghunter is sure. The test is whether the evidence, as presented to the Court (as distinguished from what you may hear in a Father Pavone presser) is "clear and convincing." The trial judge found that it was. The 2nd District Court of Appeals agreed.
It is interesting that so many people believe that the judgment they make from information in the reviled media allows them to have a clearer view of the facts than those who follow rules of evidence which have been tested and refined for hundreds of years and who actually hear how some of these stories will stand up when put to the test.
It is also interesting that those who are willing to believe an alleged doctor posting on a blog - unconditionally - will take a nothing fact like an election contribution by a lawyer to a judge [if you think this isn't a staple of every judicial election, you need to have some more coffee] and try to create some huge conflict of interest over it.
It is a question of going where the facts lead, or making up your mind and finding "facts" to support that position.
I thought he'd opus'ed and was leaving. Glad I wasn't imagining that.
To most of FR, that would be a personal attack - the "lawyerly" part. Perhaps I should hit abuse. ;-)
I thought you'd appreciate it more than Nazi. LOL
He opused a bunch of times during the last campaign, some folks didn't care for Keyes, so he whined and tried to have them banned, then he stormed off, never to return.
Until he did, again and again.
Really? You sat through the trial? Because if you didn't, and you make this statement, then you must not have the slightest idea what "clear and convincing evidence" is.
BTW, they are entitled to meet on the www anywhere, anytime they want. You just like to eavesdrop, tsk, tsk.
sw
SO CORRECT!
Yes we are. What's your point? NO one should ever remove any life support?
sw
This is a great site............
Bless the fine ones.
Rivero's threads ran the range from believable to really whacky. But most of the subject material was topical, e.g., Ron Brown, John Huang, Vince Foster, etc. I'm surprised you avoided those.
Anyway, point being that the hypotheses advanced here, and quality of supporting reseach and analysis, is always in a state of flux.
I don't remember him on the Foster threads but I think I did avoid the others.
There would have to be a first time.
There would have to be a first time.
and while that was all being perpetrated by the libs - even if they knew it was futile - it would bring the administration to a halt - which would satisfy them - and tear down half of what Bush has accomplished and all that he still can,,,
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.