Tom DeLay on Special Report Discussing Judiciary-6 PM ET

FoxNews | 3-31-2005

[kingattax]

Rep. Tom DeLay is appearing on Special Report with Brit Hume to discuss the activist judiciary and the recently passed federal law calling for a de novo review of the Terri Schindler Schiavo case.

[Kenny Bunkport]

This is a good sign. Delay isn't going to walk away from this issue. We need a "Wilberforce" on this issue of the Imperial Judiciary. I'm not sure Delay is the guy, but someone needs to step forward.

[Diogenesis]

[LS]

This is stupid. The law only said that they had to so a "de novo" review. The courts did. The courts are allowed to choose and define what constitutes "de novo." Does it mean interview all witnesses again? Get new tests? The court gets to decide. That is what people here NEVER got. Even if the court had a complete, top-to-bottom de novo review with neurologists, the Schaivo side could pick two, the Schindlers two, and the COURT ONE. It was never, ever, in a zillion years going to yield a different result. DeLay is going overboard now.

[kingattax]

someone has to stand up to these black-robed thugs.

this 'advancing a liberal agenda' while sacrificing justice HAS GOT TO STOP

[kingattax]

LOL..where in the world did you get that ?

[Kenny Bunkport]

This issue is bigger than Terri Schiavo and the details of her case.

[kingattax]

there was NEW evidence which greer REFUSED to allow or consider. if you are satisfied that Terri received true justice in the courts, then you and I are on vastly differing sides of this issue.

[LS]

Agreed, but I'm telling you now, this is going to go exactly the opposite of where people here think. States that previously had nebulous laws that were interpreted generally in favor of a patient are going to broaden their right-to-die clauses.

This may not "backlash" against Republicans, per se, but it is definitely going to cause a backlash against extreme right-to-life cases.

[kingattax]

DeLay said the House Judiciary Committee will be investigating this and making recommendations to the full house about any reforms that they believe are necessary.

We need to get a list of representatives on that committee and start a serious lobbying effort

[LS]

It doesn't matter what he refused to consider or not consider. Read the law. The law just said he had to give it another look. Judges, liberal and conservative, "define" what the law says they can consider.

[Kenny Bunkport]

Judges, liberal and conservative, "define" what the law says they can consider.

Isn't that the problem? Whether right or wrong, Terri's case and the apparent arrogance of the courts in blowing off Congress' expressed intent that they take a new look at all of the evidence (and despite what you claim, no federal judge did this) has been the last straw for a lot of folks who believe that the courts are out of control and accountable to no one, not even the laws of the land. Sadly, Terri is already "yesterday's news." Just maybe there's enough frustration with the courts to smash the Democrats' filibuster. I voted for Bush in '00 primarily to turn the courts around. How successful have the and the GOP been in 4-plus years? We either start fixing this now, or it never will be fixed.

[livius]

We do. Somebody (who knows how) should start a ping list and we should get moving on this.

I hope I'll be voting for Tom DeLay for president next time around...

[Travis McGee]

This issue is bigger than Terri Schiavo and the details of her case.

Amen. It's about the ascendancy of KING COURT as the new unopposed tyrant of the USA.

[Travis McGee]

What will we do when the courts determine there is no individual right to own guns, or demand full "gay marriage" rights, right down the line to demanding that our kids be taught gay sex education etc on an equal basis in grade schools.

If the black robed tyrants demand it, and blow off the congress and the president, and they don't have the backbone to call King Court's bluff, what then>?

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Well the honorable Senator from PA, Rick Santorum, says otherwise. I think I will listen to him.

[Lancey Howard]

Tom DeLay has the guts to follow through on what he says.

[Kenny Bunkport]

Let's make sure it doesn't get that far. (We may be too late as it is.)

[antceecee]

Delay ought to go whup-@ss on this subject. He has nothing to lose, after all he is under heavy attack from the lefties anyway. May as well get in his licks before they run him out of office.

[LS]

No, it's not the problem. There is no legislature, no where, not time, that can stipulate every single possibility in every single law. Even God gave the children of Israel JUDGES to determine daily occurrences that could NOT be contained in Deuteronomy or Leviticus---and if you read those, they are pretty extensive.

All western tradition supposes that legislatures/assemblies establish general principles called "laws" and that ministers and/or justices determine on a case by case basis which laws apply and when.

And I'm telling you that by conservatives insisting on defining even further specifics of the law, those definitions are NOT going to be satisfactory because it's not the job of legislatures to adjudicate details (i.e., get involved in one person's life, regardless of justness of cause), but rather to set broad parameters of principles.