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."
Don't like the heat? Get the hell out the kitchen!
SECTION 17. Excessive punishments.--Excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishment, attainder, forfeiture of estate, indefinite imprisonment, and unreasonable detention of witnesses are forbidden. The death penalty is an authorized punishment for capital crimes designated by the legislature. The prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, shall be construed in conformity with decisions of the United States Supreme Court which interpret the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment provided in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any method of execution shall be allowed, unless prohibited by the United States Constitution. Methods of execution may be designated by the legislature, and a change in any method of execution may be applied retroactively. A sentence of death shall not be reduced on the basis that a method of execution is invalid. In any case in which an execution method is declared invalid, the death sentence shall remain in force until the sentence can be lawfully executed by any valid method. This section shall apply retroactively.
Cruel and unusual punishement doesn't obtain where the innocent but severly disabled are concerned.
I'll be very VERY blunt.
DISCLAIMER: This is an example. In no way would this be acceptable. I am using this from a woman's perspective so MAYBE you might understand. The below example is just that - an example. Unfortunately enough people believe all laws are good and trustworthy. Unfortunately, they're not.
Pretend you got a lovely, wonderful, loving daughter who was in an accident and in a wheelchair. There's a bad guy - a VERY BAD GUY out in the front yard and he says he's gonna come in and rape your daughter and kill her. And he got permission from her husband. You following this? Her husband. And you know something...? She can't move herself. And the cops say because the guy threatening to come in and rape and kill her was solicted legally by her husband, it's okay. Oh, yeah, something else. Her husband has been shacking up and creating children and wants to marry the adultress new love of his life.
Your neighbors are upset. I'm upset. Some good cops are upset. And you cannot believe you're not going to ever wake up from this nightmare. It seems no one can help you. AND YOU CANNOT DO A SINGLE THING, BECAUSE THE OTHER COPS SAY YOU CAN'T. You have to stand by outside of the room hearing it happen - and cannot do anything to stop it. Why? (Whisper this next sentence to yourself.) Because her husband got someone to say it was okay for the bad guy to rape and kill her: Legally.
I put it in terms of a daughter whose body and life is in danger of violation and death hoping you can understand what is happening. My assumption is you do not have a daughter, or you wouldn't be asking that question....
He got someone to approve LEGAL murder - but wait - because it's legal it's not murder. And her parents cannot protect her because the law says they can't. If they do they become the ciminals. And you're wondering why her husband can't be the one to decide to have her offed so he can do what he wants, claming she would not want to live.
You are unfortunately what some would call a useful idiot. Someone way back in history coined that phrase when he and his group of people figured out they could use ignorant people to do their work for them. Google the phrase.
None of you people like snakehandlers, so don't try to fool us.
That's OK. I think everyone's nerves are frayed today.
We have simple laws in all 50 states if they are not overridden by the Feds. They work properly for the vast majority of people. They failed Terri Schiavo because she was doubly stupid. She had no living will and she had a rotten husband. You can't save some people from themselves.
So9
No. I just find it amazing that so many conservatives are jumping offside to involve the federal government in a state matter.
Let's just do away with state courts, especially when we don't like what comes out of state courts. Would that be suitable?
I have been encouraging people to listen to Insight for Living on the radio or internet. Chuck Swindol has been teaching about the story of Esther and yesterday's sermon was RIGHT ON TARGET!
That's outstanding. Thanks for sharing that.
Yes, he is exactly that - an amoral ACTOR who makes a pretense of moral concern.
But no moral person, much less a Christian would argue to keep the letter of the law and allow a woman to be slowly starved to death.
Jesus argued quite the exact opposite, that the law must serve the needs of the people.
Sinkspur is engaging in nothing more than cheap polemics.
One day he will answer for his words and deeds as God is just.
The court found that Teri wanted to die. And there you have it. They view it as a mercy killing. It is a mess, and now suddenly some think that I find favor with the rogue court. And so it goes. Folks just don't understand how lawyers think I guess. :)
Right, I'll call someone competent.
So9
NO State has the right to put an innocent, disabled woman to death by starvation and dehydration.
NO STATE. NO WAY.
Obviously, I could be wrong, but it hasn't been my sense that money is the issue here. Just as obviously, though, there are some strong motivations in play.
Then you do what I did and call one of your buddies to store it for you. Preferably someone your wife likes. All lawyers have lawyers.
No, not you. And not even EVERYONE on the pro-Terri side, either. But I'm sure you can find the posts of those I'm talking about. Actually, you've been a victim of them yourself here.
It is one of life's little unfairnesses that the craziest, most out-there people in a cause ALWAYS drown out the sane and sincere.
The court found she wanted to die. That is my impression. If so, we need a law.
Uh... it's hard to have evidence the prisoner is alive if the warden won't let it get printed/videod or filmed... You're on a roll this evening. Not a smart one, but a roll!
[And there's even more evidence that Michael is trying to prevent any impertial observers from seeing if she's "in there". Pretty darmed alarm-bell-level suspicious.]
I agree, that is very suspicious.
The death of the innocent is a NATIONAL ISSUE ~ it shouldn't happen here!
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.