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."
I'm sorry, but I don't believe your "story". You couldn't have posted the callous things you did on this thread if you had really gone through what you just described.
I still believe it's a typical troll tactic. You disrupt the thread, insult, etc. You posted some pretty nasty comments about Terri which I don't think anyone of us who care will forget. You said she should die.
Then as the thread is winding down, you come with your "real life story" to get sympathy?
A woman's life is on the line while you are playing your little games.
Can't imagine how you sleep at night after your antics.
The commands God gives us about what is right and wrong are used by the Holy Spirit to convict the heart of sin. When hearing of the love offered people through Christ does not cause them to turn from to Him and away from sin, it can be because their consciences are not terrorized enough.
We need to understand WHY we need a Savior. We need to hear that God hates our lack of mercy, that God hates our lusts, that God hates our not loving Him or others.
And that the only solution for even the worst sinner is to let Him change you. He will help you not continue this evil and you can be a new, cleansed, forgiven person, here and now.
You will spend an eternity in agony and misery without Him because of your disbelief against Him. You can be freed from those sins here and now through the death of Jesus Christ on your behalf.
If you are horrified at having to face His wrath because of your lies about Terri, your phyisical and mental abuse,your neglect of her care or even of other patients, accept Jesus Christ's atonement, His death for you which took your punishment. Accept His grace and love and forgiveness, and stop your sins.
You have the opportunity now, before He decides to take your life.
OK, the Evelyn Wood read of this seems to say there is some red tape but the bottom line is the document is not a must follow, it's advisory at the pleasure of the court.
This post confirms it, freecopper. Glad you pointed it out.
Typical liberal with a guilty conscience.....trying to push it off on all of us.
Not gonna happen.
Exactly.......and he only "recalled" that was what Terri wanted, after he collected his million dollar settlement.
He has a new life, with a new family and children. Why wouldn't he be willing to divorce her now?
It makes no sense....
"I think that you are suffering from more guilt over your decision than you'd like to let on and this is just your way of justifying your decision.
If so, may God forgive you."
Can it with your 2-bit psychoanalysis. You trivialize the whole discussion with this baloney. Elevate your thoughts, if possible, out of the gutter of nastiness in which you dwell. Geez.
Well it does sound like so-nine has a moral dog in this fight.
Goodness, you really would have to have a longtermmemory to get through that post. Why didn't you make it a little longer?
Read my lips: Who the hell cares?!
#494 Well stated.
I see that I touched a sore spot with you too.
What's your reason for wanting her to die?
BTW, it's not psychoanalysis, it's common sense. If you are as lofty and caring as you claim, you could see his problem too.
In his case, his father brow beat him into agreeing to let him go -- what else do you call monthly harangues for 40 years? But it was his father's decision and his decision (for better or worse) to follow his father's wishes.
But that is where it ends. It's that family's decision.
Here, a scummy POS cheating husband who has abandoned her, but not her money, and the (la di freeking da) kangaroo court has ordered this fate for Terri.
IF you don't see the difference, then slither back to the sewer that you came out of.
Minors are commonly given guardians ad litum to represent them before the courts. If a hospital thinks a parent is doing the wrong thing, they go to court.
Problem here is the institutions don't seem to be looking after Terry but bowing to her husband.
Am I wrong on that?
Post 913 is one of the most offensive smarmy hateful posts I have ever read on this forum.
I don't care what one's position is, this post is beyond decency. It really turned my stomach.
I am an attorney and I know that if a death row inmate (someone who has been tried, convicted, and sentenced to death) decides to give up further appeals and let the sentence be carried out, the courts have ruled that it can't be done unless a judge determines that the inmate is competent to make that decision. If necessary, psychiatric examinations must be conducted in order to ensure that the inmate is making a rational choice.
I guess that is why I'm so concerned that Mr. Schiavo's recollections of what Terri said are being allowed to control the outcome of her life. That kind of evidence would be laughed out of court if it were the only evidence that a condemned prisoner wished to be executed.
I'm also very troubled by many postings on this forum who appear to have equated the starvation and dehydration of Terri with the dying process of someone who is terminally ill with cancer, for whom no treatment is possible. Despite all the morphine and other pain-killing drugs, my mother was not spared the pain of her death. Her doctor at the hospice told me that some of the pain was from her cancer, but that the pain was exacerbated by the drying out of her membranes and tissues as a result of dehydration and starvation. They weren't being cruel to her by denying hydration, it was just that her body couldn't accept it. Terri, on the other hand, does not have a terminal illness that prevents her body from accepting food and hydration. So, to me, starvation and dehydration is a very cruel way for her life to end, and I don't see how anyone who claims to have ever loved her can watch her die that way.
We agree. I haven't posted much on these threads until today mostly because I didn't know much about this case. Until I read a little about it, and I still obviously am far from knowledgeable and may be wrong in some assumpptions I make.
What so disturbs me is the public is in a huge debate, unless of course I am just seeing a few noisy people. The facts are not clear, for every post saying one thing there is a post refuting it.
It seems to me that it should be clear to everyone by now what her state is, who is actiing in her interest, why there was no criminal investigation of Sciavo, if it is true or not that Terry is responsive.
All of that is muddy and when things are muddy, people ought not to die.
And nobody should starve and die the way she is dying. Nobody. Even a cancer victim is given morphine to hasten and as much as is needed for paiin. They refuse intake because dying people do. But they do it in the process of dying which is inevitable. It is not inevitable for this woman.
Things ought to be clear to everyone. And not even remotely clear is the question if this husband is acting in her interests. I think he isn't.
Apparently you havent been keeping up with the case as her parents have repeatedly appealed to the courts to allow them to care for their daughter.
Of course I am sure you realize this and you are making such statements as a simplistic polemical cheap shot. Do you think that there are not tens of thousands of people whou WOULD take care of Terri? If you think there are not then you are less bright than even your simplistic posts would indicate.
Would I take care of Terri? Of course I would, and if you talk some sense into Judge Greer to let me have custody of her rather than her murderous adluterous husband, then I shall.
Terri has fewer rights in our legal system than a convicted murder. Even a rabid dog in a pound is given pain relief and put to sleep instead of starved to death.
Steve freeps. Thanks.
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.