Posted on 04/05/2005 2:06:47 PM PDT by Crackingham
U.S. Senate Republican leader Bill Frist said on Tuesday that courts had acted fairly in the Terri Schiavo "right-to-die" case, differing sharply from a vow of retribution by his House of Representatives counterpart, Tom DeLay.
"I believe we have a fair and independent judiciary today," said Frist, now trying to resolve a battle with Democrats over judicial nominations that threatens to tie his chamber into knots. "I respect that."
Frist and DeLay, as the Senate and House majority leaders, had led a charge for emergency legislation calling on the federal courts to review the Schiavo case. President Bush flew back from a Texas vacation to sign the bill into law. But federal courts refused to intervene and let stand a Florida state court order to remove a feeding tube from the brain-damaged woman. Schiavo's husband had said she would not have wanted to live in her condition, but her parents fought against the tube's removal. Schiavo died last week after spending 15 years in what courts had ruled was a persistent vegetative state.
DeLay, a Texas Republican, said afterward: "We will look at an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at the Congress and president when given jurisdiction to hear this case anew."
In a written statement, DeLay said: "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."
Frist, asked about the furor over the case, told reporters, "I will let members (of Congress) ... speak for themselves."
But the Tennessee Republican said he believed the courts "acted in a fair and independent way."
The Schiavo case was unique, Frist said. "Our bill said, 'let's let the courts take another look,"' he said.
DeLay has a spine, Mark Pence has a spine, Ron Paul has a spine. We're pretty easy to please.
Translation: "The Republican Party is now a party of eunuchs." Politics as usual, no matter the body count, until we get our retirements.
Grownup wimp, you mean. Delay risks losing nothing, Delay is right in this. Frist is losing heart (maybe he needs a transplant) at the first sign of difficulty. Delay means what he says and like our Leader does what he says. You don't really think demorats have the guts to stand up to people like Tom Delay and George W Bush do you? Hmmm? So what's to lose? In the end Delay is going to win.
What has gotten into them is that the judicial branch has become the single biggest threat to our constitutional republic. Cornyn, as an accomplished jurist, can see this and shed his usually calm demeanor when the circumstances called for it. If the judiciary attempting a silent coup of our government doesn't call for righteous indignation on the part of our leaders, what does?
"Hopefully, this is Reuters misquoting Senator Frist. I hope."
Ditto here. If this is an accurate story, Frist is going to hear from me.
1) for Republicans to hold on to those of the population who may have genuinely thought that the courts did act fairly;
We need all segments of the population to ultimately reform the courts through selecting quality judges.
2) to take an "innocent until proven guilty" attitude toward the courts - which could change if indeed there are hearings on court procedures;
3) indicate to the courts themselves that they are "innocent until proven guilty, thus providing them an opportunity - probably futile - for courts, themselves, to alter their behavior.
No offense CP, but you sound like every GOP centrist/moderate/liberal/RINO we've ever heard talk about this.
Just ask the RNC Treasurer's Office (Mike Retzer) if you can find anyone there who will tell you the truth. From what I can see, conservatives are definitely heading out the door. Maybe not critical mass yet, but definitely a trend.
It is generally accepted that conservatives are 30%+ of the base. The GOP cannot afford to lose even 1/3 of that, and yet that seems to be happening. Not necessarily people re-registering, but simply folding their arms and putting away their checkbooks (as I have).
This is a problem the GOP could easily have avoided and must have foreseen in dealing with some of the hot button issues the way they have. Consequently, they must also have decided early on to take the hits they are taking now (and which will, I believe, continue unless there is a dramatic shift to a true conservative agenda).
Two or three weeks ago I received another GOP funds solicitation call. I said my piece. There didn't seem to be much disagreement, or inclination to debate the issues, on the other end of the line. I think they've been hearing a lot of this.
I meant that a higher court should have overturned his decisions in Terri's case as her parents wished.
George W. Bush has already backed away from DeLay's proposed hearings where he wants to bring in federal judges and brow beat them on national television.
And his fellow GOPers in the House won't support this circus either.
DeLay, in the end, will do nothing. He has no support for his ill-chosen foot-in-mouth episode from last week.
That's what did it for me.
Between this and the fact that the AG said nothing about the case at any moment, I think that those of us who are concerned about this are politely being told to go take a hike. Polite now, but they'll be more agressive later when they want it clear that they have nothing to do with "extremists" like us. Too bad - I won't have anything to do with reelecting wimps like them (I worked like a fiend in the last election, but I'm sure not going to do it in the next one).
Bye bye presidential bid
You know it, but then again, never once thought that would happen but then again, I would never have believed Terri Shiavo would be legally starved to death and no court to step in for her.
Our "leaders" are pansies.
Our goal is to protect life, not to play legalistic games.
The 11th Circuit Court of appeals may be "the most conservative court", but it abetted in the judicial murder of a helpless woman.
That is not the sort of conservatism that I want, support, or have tried to advance.
That perhaps suits you, but it does not suit me.
The purpose of law is to protect life. If the law does not protect life, it is bad, no matter who holds the gavel.
If the "strict constructionist" approach cannot save the life of a helpless woman from being killed by thirst under armed guard - and it manifestly didn't, if you're saying that the result WAS a "strict constructionist" result, then pro-lifers cannot support that approach.
The result is the goal: protection of life.
If strict constructionism is protective of life, as we were led to believe it was, then it should be part of the toolbox. But if it won't protect life, as you are saying it didn't in the case of Terri Schiavo, then it is not an approach to law that those who believe life is sacred are going to be able to support.
YOU want courts that are strict constructionist.
I want courts that will apply the law to protect life.
If those two things look down the same sightline, we are allies. But my objective is not to work to get courts you approve of, whose judicial philosophy won't protect life.
Extremists like us came in handy when Karl Rove needed our votes, eh?
Good luck running for president..... another filp flopper
So far, since the Republicans have been in the majority, have they ACTED like it? You're right, that's too slow for me!
Who would that be?
No moral people should stand for an atrocity whereby an innocent woman is slowly put to death.
Jesus said what we do to the least, we do to Him.
We starved Terri Schiavo to death and, in doing so, we committed an atrocity toward the Son of God, as well.
No Christian should defend this barbarism.
now that they are no longer of any use to Karl Rove's strategery.
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.