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."
Probably called him up and said something like: "Isn't water is wonderful? Too much water. Too little water. Either way, the inconvience is gone."
Define purview for lower courts, yes. But terms are defined by the Constitution, as is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Congress cannot overrule that.
Authorized, but did not require. The court took a narrow view of the legislation, and determined that since no new evidence was presented then there were no grounds to overturn the prior decision.
I believe this was the inherent weakness in the legislation for Terri.
And it let the Federal courts off the hook. They took it and washed their hands of Terri.
They didn't demand action on the nuclear option; they demanded that Terri Schiavo be saved. In that sense, they weren't in favor of the nuclear option.
Especially, as the first thing I did upon hearing of the death of Terri was to call my two senators and get their stance on the "nuclear option" and affirm my support of them should they choose to take it.
They won't. You spent your chips on this effort.
Now, of course, you are saying that it's the religious right's nuttiness that has scared off the moderates. Can't have it both ways, Grand Poohbah. I don't expect this to prohibit you from trying. Carry on apace.
This is one of the reasons I'm opusing out today: we've got a really high number of folks who either cannot or will not read the post, but will reply to what they think it said.
OK, so I imagined all those f***ing posts saying exactly that.
We want action.
You got action, it didn't play out as you wished, and Jeb Bush wasn't going to start committing felonies to keep you happy.
As I read your piece you are the one who wants to leave.
I don't want to leave; I am merely forced to.
I'm giving you 100% leeway to do whatever it is you want. If you think you can survive without my vote, then you have no need to earn it.
If the Act only provided for jurisdiction consistent with Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Act would not be in violation of the principles of separation of powers. The Act, however, goes further. Section 2 of the Act provides that the district court: (1) shall engage in “de novo” review of Mrs. Schiavo’s constitutional and federal claims; (2) shall not consider whether these claims were previously “raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings”; (3) shall not engage in “abstention in favor of State court proceedings”; and (4) shall not decide the case on the basis of “whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.” Pub. L. 109-3, § 2. Because these provisions constitute legislative dictation of how a federal court should exercise its judicial functions (known as a “rule of decision”), the Act invades the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle...
There's more detail, but this is the gist of it. In other words, Congress did everything it could think of to predetermine the outcome of the case without actually stating so. And, yes, that is unconstitutional.
Again, not according to this sentence: 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.
So sadly true.
Judges sometimes come up with opinions that have no relation to the constitution and in fact use international law as backup for their reasoning. These judges need to be impeached.
No where did I suggest that anything should be done that would go against the constitution, including judges.
Until we get good judges installed, we will have to minimize the damage of those we have now. That means impeaching some of them. The more we get rid of now, and replace with good conservatives, the less we will have to take the drastic measure of impeachment in the future. We have the upper hand now. That may change as early as 2006. Now is the time. Courageous men like Tom Delay are ready to act. Will we stand with them?
You never know until you try. At the very least let's haul them before the judiciary committee and make them sweat under oath.
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.