[antceecee]

MSM is hot on his tail of so called ethics problems. I won't be surprised to see them bring him down. If his fellow Republicans decide they might be risking their own political futures by protecting him they will leave him to the wolves. That is the nature of politics today. So, no matter that the House will not support it in the present, does not mean they will not in the future (they at times have an every man for himself attitude). The actions of the circuit court judge Greer in this issue should be scrutinized, especially in light of the Congressional subpoena that was issued and quashed. I know you are the very learned prof. of history, but we are dealing with more than just the separation of powers here. We are dealing with a powerful media that has the ability to bring down the mightiest in power. JMHO

[LS]

I know the media is out to get him. But they have been for years. The media can't do squat about his "ethics problems" if a) he didn't do anything, and b) he tells them to go to hell. (Trent Lott did NOT have to leave. He allowed himself to be steamrolled).

Now, I'll be honest. I have not kept up with the specifics of Delay's ethics problems, but the House can't kick him out (and won't), so he is safe as long as the people in his distric re-elect him.

All Greer did was to interpret the Congressional mandate for a "de novo" hearing as a "new" hearing, which he gave them. Trust me, you do NOT want the U.S. congress spelling out in minute detail what a single judge must do. Moreover, as I've pointed out, this was a non-starter from the get-go: even if Greer had given Congress what it wanted, a "bottoms up" brand-new hearing it would have looked like this: the Schindlers would have brought in two neurologists who said Terri is fine; Schaivo would have brought in two who said she is PVS; and Greer, as the tie-breaker, would have appointed a fifth neurologist who conformed to his earlier decision, and that would be that. I'm amazed that anyone here thought ANY "de novo" hearing would have any different result. The judge always sets the definitions.

So then what? Are you really going to allow Congress to say, "You must not only have a de novo hearing, but must use neurologists x, y, z?" Then, after the hearing starts, say one dies---and the judge has to appoint another one! The point is NO LEGISLATURE can get involved in this minutia---it is totally destructive of the entire system.