Posted on 04/20/2005 1:36:40 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
WASHINGTON - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay ratcheted up his criticism of judges and singled out U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on Tuesday, faulting him for using the Internet to conduct research and for writing court decisions "based on international law."
DeLay, R-Sugar Land, who was critical of federal judges who refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube before her death, also noted his disappointment that Republican-appointed judges are "judicial activists."
DeLay and other conservatives were angered last month when the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, found the Constitution forbids executing convicts who committed crimes before turning 18. The court majority opinion noted that the views of international courts had been taken into account.
Won't step down as leader
"We've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That's just outrageous. And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous," DeLay said during an interview on Fox News Radio's The Tony Snow Show.
The interview was part of DeLay's public relations campaign with Republican-friendly news organizations to rebut criticism about his ethical behavior that has escalated in recent weeks.
Asked how the controversy has affected him personally, DeLay answered with a laugh: "Well, it certainly has gotten me closer to God."
DeLay said he would not step down from his leadership post unless he is indicted by a grand jury investigating one of his political action committees. House GOP rules require leaders to step aside following indictment.
DeLay has been the most critical congressional leader regarding judicial behavior.
Following Schiavo's death earlier this month the Florida woman was in a vegetative state when judges declined to stop removal of her feeding tube DeLay warned: "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."
That and other comments by DeLay caused some Republicans who agree with his criticism of judicial activism, such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to distance themselves from his remarks.
Last week, DeLay apologized for his "inartful" rhetoric but did not back away from his vow to have Congress review recent court decisions.
Defining 'good behavior'
On the radio program, DeLay offered more detail on what he is seeking.
He wants the House Judiciary Committee to probe the constitutional provision that says 'judges can serve as long as they serve with good behavior,' " he said. "We want to define what 'good behavior' means. And that's where you have to start."
DeLay said he opposes judges "that don't follow the Constitution and write their own laws. And of course, the leftists hate it when we attack the left's last legislative body."
Democrats have said Republicans such as DeLay are going after the judiciary, even threatening impeachment, because they disagree with their decisions.
During a routine House Appropriations Committee hearing last week to consider the Supreme Court's budget, Kennedy answered Republicans' criticism against judges by calling it "very healthy." He added that democratic dialogue makes democracy work.
What this does is frame the smear campaign against DeLay in the proper light---now even the most obtuse observers realize that this orchestrated "outrage" against him is all fabricated on liberals preserving judicial activism.
Congressman Tom DeLay
Majority Leader Office
H-107 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
p. (202)225-4000
f. (202)225-5117
Does anyone have Tom DeLay's email address?
I'm not in his district anymore, so I picked up the phone and called. They were glad to hear from me.
thank you!! :0)
So you were saying something about KENNEDY using the Internet and looking at INTERNATIONAL LAW to see how to effectlively respond to the AMERICAN CITIZEN...Terri Schiavo case brought before him?
Nope.
"Of course, the embarrassment is that Justice Kennedy was overturning his own decision of 15 years before, based on "evolving standards" and laws in other countries."
First, I too question the change on capital punishment.
That said though, the Constitution state "cruel and unusual punishment", without defining what that is.
Who decides?
"Not knowing that makes DeLay look stupid,"
I was thinking ignorant....but same idea. LOL
"I didn't know that Jefferson looked to international law"
Off the nickel even.
"Our laws are so convoluted, contradictory, and confusing"
Sounds like your issues are with DeLay and Congress who write those laws. ;-)
Brilliant comment about international law - stupid comment about the internet. Every law student nowadays does research that way. It's easier and faster.
Oh, and I suspect Kennedy obtains information about (selected) other country's (selected) laws on the Internet, and that's what inspired Delay's comment.
"No wonder the libs are after him: He Fights and he fights good.
The party should not only support him, we should rally behind him and fight the fight with him."
Ditto! bump
"who decides???"
The answer is obvious!!
The founding fathers decided, back in 1787, to allow capital punishment (its in the Constitution ... look it up.)
There are many instances of how a law has been applied ( "stare decisis") - and the idea of "precidence" means that the law should continue to be applied IN THE SAME MANNER ... unless the legislature changes the law through the process used to change the law. If the law is something embedded in our Constitution (for example - the "constitutionality of the death penalty") ... then the courts shouldn't try to change it by citing evolving standards, but the legislature is free to amend the Constituion in the manner proscribed by the Constitution.
The point is ... Judges and Justices are over-stepping the bounds of what they are legally able to do; they are now re-defining laws, so that the application of the law is different than what it used to be. That is ... plain and simple ... WRONG!!
So ... back to your question ... "cruel and unusual" can be defined by looking at how it has been applied for over 200 years. If something has been allowed for 200 years, then it becomes judicial activism when a judge suddenly decides that what was formerly acceptable and legal is now "unconstitutional" because it offends his sensibilities, or fails to comport with judicial definitions of some European country.
Mike
Where on the Internet does Kennedy do his research? DemocratUnderground or the Playboy website?
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.