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."
Which, by the way, includes the legislature.
Have you read the statute?
IMNHO, Gibbs was not interested in winning this case. It didn't serve the agenda of the folks fronting his money.
I wish I could understand why Gibbs didn't throw himself on the de novo right handed to him by Congress and the President.
Because the goal was to lose.
I'll just never understand it.
Here's a thought: it's because Randall Terry wants to play the role of Gerry Adams.
A Life was on line. Everything else including economic reform should be secondary for everyone.
As to the "religious right", perhaps you've noted that "conservatives" were also NOT in favor on any action on part of Congress and the president in this case. These same "conservatives" have delivered the same possibility they may no longer vote for the GOP. Are you worried about their continued alliegance?
If anything once the emotion calms down Christians will be more determined than ever to correct the Judiciary, and they'll seek the GOP as the vehicle to make this happen. Through ending filibusters..through insitance the GOP use its constitutional authority to discipline the Judiciary. It's already begun.
As progress continues on pursuing S.S. reform economic conservatives will stay onboard. Foreign policy remains strong, so will those that consider this the number one issue. Moderates are fickle, so this will be unlikely to still matter to them by the time of the next election. The only ones you might concern yourself with are those that are faithful to "state rights" above all. To them I state, Lincoln defied "state rights" more so than could ever be argued here, and he was RIGHT to do so.
The only thing "irresponsible and reprehensible" is that porker, Ted Kennedy. I hope that DeLay follows through on this. We need to get rid of those who legislate from the bench. I received a petition via e-mail yesterday that was to impeach Judge Greer, and when I signed it, there were already 33K signatures.
Well this is good. Maybe the branches can finally have at it, take the gloves off and git her done. It'd be about freaking time.
Huh? Here's the relevant clause:
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.The Congress can make any exception and regulation of appellate review they so desire.
Says the fat, feckless man with no penis.
The State Legislature of Florida did just that. It was declared unconstitutional.
No, actually I haven't. There has been so much posted on this case I haven't been able to read it all and if someone posted a link I missed it.
Do you have a link you could post for me so I can read it?
Check your U.S. Constitution again. The lower federal courts exist at the whim of Congress. This includes all facets if Congress so desires, including both jurisdiction and standards of review. After what transpired, if I were in Congress, I'd seriously consider a bill limiting subject matter jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to appeals of Section 1983 cases involving left-handed migrant farmers named "Bob"...and mandate an abuse of discretion standard of review for such cases. I'd also take the opportunity to slash the judges salaries to 1/10 present compensation and defund their law clerks. Make the clowns write their own opinions.
I don't understand all the legalize, but why would he have had to do this? Didn't the congress file it with the courts asking to do a de novo?
Has that ever been litigated? For the Constitution clearly says they can:
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:
"... and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
“If Mary Jo Kopechne had lived, she would be 64 years old.
Through his tireless work as a legislator,
Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age
and she would have supported Sen. Kennedy in his coverup of exterminating a witness
for the Florida Judiary.”
Charles Pierce, January 5, 2003 Boston Globe Magazine
That's a matter for appeal, not a matter for a de novo review of facts in a case.
Gibbs worked for free, and the Schindler's got what they paid for.
Too bad they couldn't have employed David Boies. He was on their side, but he doesn't do pro bono work.
Absolutely false, that passage grants them the power to apply exceptions and regulations to jurisdiction only, not appellate review. Appellate review is not jurisdiction. Those things are completely separate.
I suggest you check your Constitution. It does not empower Congress to determine any aspect of how court proceeding will be conducted. Their authority to create courts does not give them any power to dictate the way judges will try individual cases. You are simply misinformed here. The power to create a court does not give them the power to control individual court hearings from the floor of Congress.
That would be Marbury v. Madison (1803).
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.