DeLay amplifies knocks on judges

Houston Chronicle ^ | April 20, 2005 | GEBE MARTINEZ, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

[rdb3]

And this is a reason why Rep. DeLay has my 100% support. Bring it on, Leftists!

[Bulwark]

I'd like a Supreme Court Justice to be educated enough on the law to pull down the right book and look it up - or have clerks who could point him in the right direction.

The Internet isn't the end all and be all of information.

And I like a justice who is smart enough to hop onto lexis/nexis and find laws and past case rulings online without having to have someone get it for him. We need more people like this.

[SkyPilot]

Going on the offensive was absolutely the right call. DeLay is a genius. The media is so angry and fearful of him, they are now publishing his latest "attack" all over the place.

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.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Congressman Tom DeLay

Majority Leader Office
H-107 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
p. (202)225-4000
f. (202)225-5117

[psychedelicate63]

Does anyone have Tom DeLay's email address?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

You need to go through his district email form. Here

I'm not in his district anymore, so I picked up the phone and called. They were glad to hear from me.

[psychedelicate63]

thank you!! :0)

[Smartaleck]

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.

[Smartaleck]

"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?

[Smartaleck]

"Seriously, I would hope that our Supreme Court has a computer network"

!_, what do you think is insecure.....hackers are going in and editing the law books?

The two sites cited are both subscription required and would have some sense of security built in from an e-commerce point of view if nothing else.

[Smartaleck]

"Not knowing that makes DeLay look stupid,"

I was thinking ignorant....but same idea. LOL

[Smartaleck]

"I didn't know that Jefferson looked to international law"

Off the nickel even.

[Smartaleck]

"Our laws are so convoluted, contradictory, and confusing"

Sounds like your issues are with DeLay and Congress who write those laws. ;-)

[drungus]

Ummmm, I would guess that Justice Kennedy was most likely referring to Westlaw or LexisNexis. I'm not sure what DeLay was picturing with respect to Kennedy's statement, but his criticism of internet research makes him seem a wee bit out of touch.

[traviskicks]

Brilliant comment about international law - stupid comment about the internet. Every law student nowadays does research that way. It's easier and faster.

[1_Of_We]

I suspect "case law" is much greater than any law DeLay might have helped create in Congress.
Also, how do you, and others, 'know' what DeLay knows? (re: comments on his 'ignorance' or 'stupidity') I'm sure most of his disagreement, as stated, has to do with Kennedy considering the (selected) laws of (selected) other countries.

[1_Of_We]

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.

[sasafras]

"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

[Vineyard]

"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

[churchillbuff]

Where on the Internet does Kennedy do his research? DemocratUnderground or the Playboy website?