Posted on 04/04/2005 8:06:29 AM PDT by tessalu
Vice President Cheney says he opposes revenge against judges for their refusal to prolong the life of the late Terri Schiavo, although he did not criticize House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) for declaring that they will "answer for their behavior."
Cheney was asked about the issue on Friday by the editorial board of the New York Post. He said twice that he had not seen DeLay's remarks, but the vice president said he would "have problems" with the idea of retribution against the courts. "I don't think that's appropriate," he said. "I may disagree with decisions made by judges in any one particular case. But I don't think there would be much support for the proposition that because a judge hands down a decision we don't like, that somehow we ought to go out -- there's a reason why judges get lifetime appointments."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
We are in strong agreement. My comment on the Cheney thread was similar. And it goes without saying that had it been their daughter, the Bush brothers would have rescued her.
Time to call again tomorrow.
Speaking of Cheney, he is also in favor of the Law of the Sea treaty. I used to really admire Vice-president Cheney, but the more I learn about him, the more he disappoints.
Under the Law of the Sea treaty, a U.N. agency – the International Seabed Authority – would be able to regulate the usage of seven-tenths of the earth's surface.
President Reagan fought this, but there is a different breed of Republicans, these days.
Thankfully, there are still some good guys, like Tom Delay.
If possible, please let me know if you get the results you wanted with his aide.
:o)
Depends on the circumstances. I don't think you've been going around the country protesting at the thousands of times a year this happens.
Well, you replied to this quote from Cheney--"I may disagree with decisions made by judges in any one particular case."--by saying
I thought Cheney was fairly smart. What part of "it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers’ blueprint for the governance of a free people — our Constitution." does he agree with?Cheney's talking about decisions he may or may not agree with, and you then post a quote from a non-decision asking what part he agrees with. Looked apparent to me that you thought you were quoting a decision (since your response to Cheney otherwise made no sense), so I figured a correction was in order.
Anyway, that's "what the heck" I was talking about.
Mr. Vice President. You are a terrific part of an outstanding administration, possibly the best ever in my opinion. I disagree with you on this issue.
Exactly where did you get that idea from? Looking at new evidence from an appellate level is not all that common unless the petitioner can show that the evidence would have a likely chance of altering the outcome. Usually appeals involve arguments of law and violations of rights or procedure, as this one was. But in this case, the judge was never asked to look at any new evidence anyway.
HE DID NOT. he just rubber-stamped
No, he looked at from scratch (de novo) those claims of violations of her rights that were brought before him, exactly as the law stated he should.
and took his sweet time about it while Terri's life ebbed away
Now you're just making crap up. Do you remember what time his ruling came out (hint: not a time that would suggest normal comfy daylight working hours)? Do you remember how long after Congress passed the law that it came out (hint: not long)?
Well, the last election revealed to me that Cheney is, unfortunately, part of the problem on cultural issues.
Anti Republicrat. In case you haven't noticed, there's not much difference, and they're not looking out for us.
It's very apparent by reading the posts on these threads whose side most of you would have been on during the American Revolution.
: )
bump
Amen, he's wrong!
So, we watch an innocent woman starved to death while a nation looks on,...and we're supposed to just "move along,...there's nothing more to see here".
The amazing thing is that I knew this is how it was going to play out when the Judge called Congress's bluff. He knew they would just walk away like beaten dogs.
Uh, the one where Congress told the Federal Courts they must review the case de novo. Where have you been for the last 3 weeks?
uh...hello? are you posting to someone else? I was giving the facts of the law here in California? what the heck are you talking about?
No, anyone who's only source of information is the MSM is ill informed.. that was my point.. stop trying to start a fight.
Care to elaborate?
Just curious.
Frankly any man who stands up for a woman's life, should hardly care about "fence mending"... who wants to mend fences with the death lovers anyhow? I'd surely give up my career if I could save someone's life.. that''s more important than any argument you've given yet..
If the conservatives can not take it and run with it, this time, its all over for us. The time to ursurp the courts power, and return it to the executive and legislative branches, is now...or never.
How easy it was for the left to de-bench a conservative for refusing to remove the 10 commandments. They are committed.
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.