Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DeLay Raises Possibility of Trying to Impeach Some Judges in Schiavo Case
AP ^ | 3/31/05 | Jesse J. Holland

Posted on 03/31/2005 3:11:22 PM PST by Crackingham

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on Thursday blamed Terri Schiavo's death on what he contended was a failed legal system and he raised the possibility of trying to impeach some of the federal judges in the case. "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," said DeLay, R-Texas.

But a leading Democratic senator said DeLay's comments were "irresponsible and reprehensible." Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said DeLay should make sure that people know he is not advocating violence against judges.

DeLay, the second-ranking House GOP lawmaker, helped lead congressional efforts 10 days ago to enact legislation designed to prod the federal courts into ordering the reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube. He said the courts' refusal to do just that was a "perfect example of an out of control judiciary."

Asked about the possibility of the House's bringing impeachment charges against judges in the Schiavo case, DeLay said, "There's plenty of time to look into that."

President Bush expressed sympathy to Schiavo's parents.

"I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others," he said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to join DeLay in criticizing the courts. "We would have preferred a different decision from the courts ... but ultimately we have to follow our laws and abide by the courts," McClellan said.

Joining DeLay in taking issue with the judiciary was Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who said, "The actions on the part of the Florida court and the U.S. Supreme Court are unconscionable." Also, GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina said the case "saw a state judge completely ignore a congressional committees subpoena and insult its intent" and "a federal court not only reject, but deride the very law that Congress passed."

DeLay said he would make sure that the GOP-controlled House "will look at an arrogant and out of control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: allterriallthetime; anotherterrithread; delay; delaypulledtheplug; goodmoreterrithread; terri; terrisciavo; ushouse; yeskeepthemcoming
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-350 next last
To: Protect the Bill of Rights; samtheman

Ironically, it is the Mary Jo event that has obviously caused TK to change his stance on whether water is of life saving benefit for an incapacitated woman.


121 posted on 03/31/2005 4:20:30 PM PST by Optimist (I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: westmichman

The religious right got a lot of patronage, and now they're going to renege on repaying that patronage. Someone stiffs me on a business deal, he will repay me one way or another. Same with the religious right. They will repay their loan--or they will be forever frozen out.


122 posted on 03/31/2005 4:20:42 PM PST by Poohbah (I'm in the WPPFF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Contempt of Congress in ignoring dult issued subpoenas.


123 posted on 03/31/2005 4:21:03 PM PST by northernlightsII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Any move by Congress to tell the Courts how to conduct in-court procedures is a direct violation of the Constitution.

Article. III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

Clause 1: ...

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

124 posted on 03/31/2005 4:21:20 PM PST by TheHound (You would be paranoid too - if everyone was out to get you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

Somehow I think we'll survive without you.

Good Luck.


125 posted on 03/31/2005 4:21:51 PM PST by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Fitzcarraldo

Impeaching them is too good for them.....jail them.


126 posted on 03/31/2005 4:22:42 PM PST by Russ7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591
Energy like yours is what will get the job done.
We need new judges and legilstyarots as well, but without term limits......
Along with an excellent expose presented by the Schindler's former lawyer for almost on hour on Hannity this afternoon proving there was no "heart attack" and no bulimia along with many other assertions.

Anyone who thought MS tried to Terri her was probably right.
127 posted on 03/31/2005 4:23:14 PM PST by rodguy911 (rodguy911:First Let's get rid of the UN and the ACLU,..toss in CAIR as well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
ALL JUDGES INVOLVED SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FOR CONSIPIRACY TO MURDER

Actually, that's a very interesting idea. I'm obviously no lawyer, but whatever law authorized this death is unconstitutional on its face, since killing someone deprives them of all constitutional rights.

An impeachment is not subject to any review by any court. Not even the Supreme court. If a supermajority of senators vote to convict, then the judge is outa there. Slam Bam.

It wouldn't matter whether a court has ever decided the constitutionality of the authorizing statute. The Congress can use whatever basis they want for their decision. Dems can scream all day long that "IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL". But the bottom line is there's no court that can reverse an impeachment.

Of course, the pubs have no brass, so it won't happen.

128 posted on 03/31/2005 4:23:27 PM PST by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

So far it seems all we've gotten is talk. Obviously the big fish to fry are judicial nominees bieing given a vote. Yeah, we got the nominations but no action.IMHO


129 posted on 03/31/2005 4:23:28 PM PST by westmichman (Pray for global warming. Friend of Ronnie -(stolen from The Patriot))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
No, they create the law only. They do not have any power to alter rules of procedure. That's exclusively a court power. The only way to change that is by Constitutional amendment. An act of Congress is not enough. Changes to rules of procedure can only be done by Constitutional amendment.

What's this then?

28 U.S.C. 1870.

In civil cases, each party shall be entitled to three peremptory challenges. Several defendants or several plaintiffs may be considered as a single party for the purposes of making challenges, or the court may allow additional peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly.

It's a law altering the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Chapter VI, Rule 47(b).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule47.htm

Rule 47. Selection of Jurors

(a) Examination of Jurors
The court may permit the parties or their attorneys to conduct the examination of prospective jurors or may itself conduct the examination. In the latter event, the court shall permit the parties or their attorneys to supplement the examination by such further inquiry as it deems proper or shall itself submit to the prospective jurors such additional questions of the parties or their attorneys as it deems proper.

(b) Peremptory Challenges.
The court shall allow the number of peremptory challenges provided by 28 U.S.C. 1870.

(c) Excuse.
The court may for good cause excuse a juror from service during trial or deliberation.


130 posted on 03/31/2005 4:23:37 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Why don't you apply to be on the team preparing the defense for the impeachment.


131 posted on 03/31/2005 4:23:59 PM PST by northernlightsII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker
Somehow I think we'll survive without you.

But you sure as hell won't survive without the GOP--and stiffing them as you're threatening to do in 2006 is going to cost you ALL access within the GOP.

132 posted on 03/31/2005 4:24:03 PM PST by Poohbah (I'm in the WPPFF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: followerofchrist

Delay's dad was on machine life support. Without it he was actually deceased. There was no family disagreement whatsoever. No relevance to the Terri case. Bet the Liberal Media told you differently, though. Reminds me of a scripture verse: "They lie, and do not the truth".


133 posted on 03/31/2005 4:25:39 PM PST by txrangerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: westmichman
So far it seems all we've gotten is talk. Obviously the big fish to fry are judicial nominees bieing given a vote.

Y'all blew the chance to get those nominees to a vote in order to save Terri Schiavo.

Yeah, we got the nominations but no action.IMHO

Your choice. And now you're going to cut and run. Brilliant.

134 posted on 03/31/2005 4:26:14 PM PST by Poohbah (I'm in the WPPFF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
Correct.
What are we to do ask our legislators to pass a law against killing the helpless, that would be a bit bizarre.
135 posted on 03/31/2005 4:26:18 PM PST by rodguy911 (rodguy911:First Let's get rid of the UN and the ACLU,..toss in CAIR as well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

Ha. I like the way you think. :-)

It would be absurd to think that Congress can create or dissolve a court at its whim, but that it could not tell the court how to operate.

In my opinion, the courts have operated outside the Constitution on this matter. I do not believe for a second that our Constituion allows barbaric treatment of its people.

The Supreme Court is a joke. They tell us the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment for murderers under the age of 18, but apparently feel that starving someone to death is ok.






136 posted on 03/31/2005 4:27:51 PM PST by planekT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

We aren't done yet are we Mr. Brilliant. This battle has just begun and now you are ready to quit?


137 posted on 03/31/2005 4:28:19 PM PST by westmichman (Pray for global warming. Friend of Ronnie -(stolen from The Patriot))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: followerofchrist
should poor people be allowed to die or will you pay for it? There is a good question for conservatives that needs to be answered.

Just think of all the Social Security money we can save if we just have grandma put down a few months early. [/sarcasm]

138 posted on 03/31/2005 4:29:38 PM PST by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: westmichman
We aren't done yet are we Mr. Brilliant. This battle has just begun and now you are ready to quit?

I've been told to f*** off one time too many by you people. So I'm just taking you up on your request. Do without my money, my efforts, and my vote.

139 posted on 03/31/2005 4:30:52 PM PST by Poohbah (I'm in the WPPFF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Totally within the rights and duties of Congress.


140 posted on 03/31/2005 4:30:55 PM PST by Fledermaus (It is now clear the Founding Fathers were wrong: free people cannot govern themselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-350 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson