DeLay Raises Possibility of Trying to Impeach Some Judges in Schiavo Case

AP ^ | 3/31/05 | Jesse J. Holland

[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."

[Soul Seeker]

Actually, I would agree with you that this isn't a state rights conflict. I do happen to admire Lincoln, whom imo is ou greatest President, however I find it somewhat illogical that some conservatives are acting as though this is new ground violated considering Lincoln's early role in the Party. As though this is a new issue.

If ever a case were to be made about state rights it would be Lincoln's role in denying secession. My point is that even if we were to concede it a state rights issue, can it really be argued this is even comparable to Lincoln's actions? I don't so. So then if the Party can survive a civil war over State rights, why couldn't it survive this?

I do agree, though, that this is clearly about restoring the separate but equal three branches apart from the issue of the sanctity of Life. If some conservatives could separate themselves from the issue a moment they would recognize the greatest violator of state rights IS our Judiciary, and the moment is ripe to begin an assault against them. If they are state right absolutist it's time they stopped ranting and joined us.

[rodguy911]

I will do that. But it 's hard to leave Laura and Sean. They have done a stellar job on this entire issue. Hannity will have the original Schindler lawyer Pat somebody on at 9 eastern tonight. She was awesome this afternoon. I learned a lot.

[westmichman]

He's getting his name out there. In 2008 everyone will have forgotten how they heard of him, they'll just know the name.

[streetpreacher]

mildly pro-choice?

[wasp69]

Also, DeLay's family pulled the plug on dad. I am curious as to whether or not that has been discussed here, or Bob Schindler making the same decision for his own mom. Sometimes it has to be done.

Nice try. Big difference between being on life support equipment to have your breathing and/or circulation done for you and having a feeding tube only for hydration and nutrition. If you actually had done some research you would understand that.

[A CA Guy]

We the people need to stay on him and others like we do now illegal immigration.
If we let them, they would love for this issue to disappear into the night.

[sinkspur]

He's getting his name out there. In 2008 everyone will have forgotten how they heard of him, they'll just know the name.

You mean like Newt Gingrich?

DeLay is not handling this situation well, IMO. He should shut his mouth and tend to the business of the country.

[rodguy911]

We may disagree on that one.
Jeb could have sent in the FDLE. That could have created a mini- stand-off with the locals which the FDLE could have won in about 5 minutes. But Jeb did not, was he wrong, well Terri died. Would she have died anyway after day 6 or 7, who knows.
Either way I would not have wanted to sit at either Jeb or GW's desk during all this. It was a tough time for all. I do not envy what they must have gone through.

[AuH2ORepublican]

A Bill of Attainder is a law that *adversely affects* a single person or a small group of people. Laws that *benefit* a single person or a small group of people are commonly referred to as boondoggles (IIRC) and are by no means unconstitutional; in fact, they are very common. The law passed by Congress granting de novo review of Terri's case certainly was not a Bill of Attainder.

[sinkspur]

If we let them, they would love for this issue to disappear into the night.

It will disappear into the night. DeLay is not being supported by other Republicans in his campaign against judges.

The way to handle this is to push for the nuclear option in the Senate, and nominate judges who will interpret the Constitution.

[rodguy911]

Boy, that's a scary scenario. But you could be right.

[A CA Guy]

Agreed regarding that and getting more conservative professors and teachers as well.

But the issue is NOT going away S, euthinasia and starvation now has a name and face to it.

[Nightshift]

Name one and show the post. I missed it. Thanks

[sinkspur]

But the issue is NOT going away S, euthinasia and starvation now has a name and face to it.

Oh, I agree with that. Absolutely.

But Tom DeLay is not going to be impeaching any judges, no matter his swagger.

[northernlightsII]

How about judges who can apply basic concepts of right and wrong.

[planekT]

The scary thing to me is that this death cult is using our own court system to fund themselves and destroy us.

That is infintily more clever then the strategy employed by the AlQueda types, and from what we have just witnessed, far more brutal and evil.

[Fred Nerks]

Sorry to butt in here, but I'm an Australian, a little out of the political loop here. You say "But Tom Delay is not going to be impeaching any judges, no matter his swagger".

Would you care to extend your comment to explain to an aussie why you sound so certain of that?

[Fred Nerks]

I agree. I can smell the stench from across the Pacific!

[A CA Guy]

There is no desire for the left, who rely on judges to make societal changes to Impeach judges.


Greer and others should get a contempt of Congress though.

[Nick Danger]

I think that holding hearings to explore whether an impeachment is warranted is a good idea.

I would expect the result of such a hearing to be that the opportunity provided by the Congress for a de novo determination was thwarted by egregiously incompetent representation on the part of the Schindlers' attorneys.

Regardless of the procedural requirements placed on a judge in such circumstances, most people will be surprised to learn that a judge would let an innocent person starve to death on the grounds that some lawyers filed an obviously misguided plea.

But this is in fact what the federal judges did. Those with their noses so far into the law books that they can't breathe probably appreciate the fairness and elegance in such a decision, but most members of the public will not.

They will ask why a judge, confronted by a horribly incompetent filing, would not notice that a helpless and innocent human being was dying over this, and blow the whistle on it.

There are probably good legal arguments for why every federal judge in the chain did this. But most members of the public, yours truly included, will never understand how a human being could sit and watch an innocent person die because proper procedures had not been followed. And to not only do that, but spend hours writing a decision citing chapter and verse the case law leading them to conclude that this person must continue to be deprived of food and water because her lawyers did not dot "i" number 2344.7 and cross "t" number 4855, as revised.

I personally hold the Schindlers' attorneys primarily responsible for the failure of the federal courts to grant the de novo review that Congress had intended. But I do have to ask what kind of judge, upon seeing that the lawyers had totally missed the point of the federal review, would say, "Well, I guess she starves then. Nothing I can do."