Posted on 03/18/2005 4:32:07 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay pledged Friday to hold Florida state judge George Greer in contempt of Congress for ignoring a congressional subpoena for Terri Schiavo's testimony, saying, "No little judge sitting in a state district court in Florida is going to usurp the authority of Congress."
"The Congress will pursue this, if we have to hold him in contempt of Congress," DeLay told radio host Sean Hannity.
Pressed on whether he intended to hold Judge Greer in contempt, the top Republican told Hannity: "Absolutely, absolutely."
"We will do everything to enforce the power and authority of the Congress and no little judge sitting in a state district court in Florida is going to usurp the authority of Congress," he added.
Earlier in the day Judge Greer rebuffed the Schiavo subpoena, telling attorneys in the case, "I have had no cogent reason why the [congressional] committee should intervene." He claimed that the last-minute action on the part of Congress does not nullify years of legal proceedings.
But DeLay told Hannity, "This judge and the Supreme Court of Florida are well known to be liberal judges that have a different worldview and they're imposing their worldview on the law."
The top House leader said that "no sane person" could look at Schiavo and say she's in a persistent vegetative state.
DeLay called a lawyer for Michael Schiavo, who has pressed for years to have his wife starved to death, "the personification of evil."
Well that rant certainly went a long way to patching things up.
This is not the only thread I post on.
"He has ordered the killing of a Federal witness."
by The Red Zone
One cannot cause any harm to someone subpoenaed, right?
The 2004 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 828
ANIMALS: CRUELTY; SALES; ANIMAL ENTERPRISE PROTECTION View Entire Chapter
828.12 Cruelty to animals.--
(1) A person who unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily mutilates, or kills any animal, or causes the same to be done, or carries in or upon any vehicle, or otherwise, any animal in a cruel or inhumane manner, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.
(2) A person who intentionally commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, or causes the same to be done, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
The family that prays together, stays together.
And you're a gossipy old woman, who talks about other people behind their backs.
If you have something to say to me, ping me to the post, as a decent person would.
Clearly you are arguing to the exclusion of any common sense or morality that this innocent woman should be starved to death because of a wacko judge having some insane desire to see her die.
And you defnd this travesty of misguided and unjust legal BS because you obviously want to see her slowly starve to death for whatever reason.
I dont care what perversion drives you to that desire, of law, or morals or diabolical perversion; whatever it is.
Such as planning a divorce but only a little too late?
OK, let's say you have no motive whatsoever for having this innocent person starved to death ~ is this your idea of entertainment?
Thanks, I agree with you 100%.
If God wanted her yet, he'd have taken her long ago.
The reason many of us are concerned is that Michael has deliberately tried to conceal any evidence of what Terri's true condition actually is. The small amount that's been able to get out despite his efforts suggests that his claims that she's PVS would not withstand scrutiny by disinterested persons (doctors with links to the Hemlock Society et al. cannot be considered "disinterested") were most of the evidence not concealed.
If Terri's condition were as bleak as Michael claims, allowing the parents to have videorecorded therapy sessions etc. would bolster his claims; Terri, being 'only a brain stem', wouldn't mind, and her privacy would be no more invaded by that than by Michael's blabbing about her gynecological problems on national television.
So why doesn't Michael allow any such thing? The most rational explanation would be that he knows he's lying about her condition.
Also, another thing to consider: if Michael could give Terri over to her parents without going to jail, shouldn't he do so for his fiancée's sake? Surely he's putting an awful lot of strain on his fiancée, for no good reason I can see. Unless, of course, he's afraid of what would happen if he didn't.
He is engaging in polemic obscurantism that any half-wit can do.
Want a good example of such amoral drivel read any of Ward Churchill's plagiarized crap.
I completely agree with that. However, the trial court heard testimony from three people, perhaps all liars, that did provide evidence of what Terri wanted. Now, what's the court supposed to do?
The new law the House just passed makes Living Wills almost useless as they will have to describe exactly what your condition will havbe to be for them to apply. A living will will be thousands of pages long to cover every eventuality.
That is why I am angry. The new law will screw up thousands of lives to try to maybe save one life that did nothing to try to save itself when it could by getting a Living Will or a decent husband.
SO9
There has been almost $2 million that has already been paid. The sooner she dies, the less is spent on lawyers and the hospice and the more he has to himself and his new squeeze.
You know that, don't you?
Do you need to be this disingenuous to pretend that there was none?
If you don't know, then you shouldn't be commenting until you know what you are talking about. I know that usually doesn't stop you, but there is an innocent life at stake this time. I would think that it would prompt you to be informed and honest.
I have never read any such post from Sinkspur. It is a ludicrous charge. I suspect Sink appreciates as do I, the participaton in the public square of all, in a robust way, including fundmantalist Prostestants, who do much good by their participation. Sink is a big supporter of the near fundamentalist Protestant Bush, more than I, for example. But that does not mean, that those of us with a different view will give them a blank check, or feel unfree to disagree with them, when we have honest disagreements. Your ad hominum embarrasses me. I don't like religious attacks on other Freepers. It offends me.
I guess there are some trolls that manage to last more than a couple of weeks.
Why bother? You won't respond. You will only make more snide trolling remarks. Explain how Greer is justified ignoring the law but Moore wasn't. You won't because you know you are being a hypocrite.
There is your problem.
There is no such thing. The Pubs get votes by being the lesser of two evils. They may or may not get my vote, depending on what they do in this high profile case
>>>Wasn't Elian kidnapped at gunpoint on a Palm Sunday?
Wow, I didn't know that. I was too ignorant to care about politics back then. :O(
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.