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 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 341-350 next last
To: Non-Sequitur

Three words: On What Grounds?

Failure to uphold their oath of office!


81 posted on 03/31/2005 3:50:03 PM PST by westmichman (Pray for global warming. Friend of Ronnie -(stolen from The Patriot))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Do you suppose Ted called Michael Schiavo and congratulated him on getting away with it in broad daylight?


82 posted on 03/31/2005 3:50:12 PM PST by randog (What the....?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker
A Life was on line. Everything else including economic reform should be secondary for everyone.

Losing the nuclear option means losing millions of lives. Are those lives "secondary?"

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?

I'm one of those conservatives. I have my limits. Those limits have been reached and exceeded by a wide margin. I have been repeatedly accused of Satanism and worse because I didn't agree in every jot and tittle of the Terri Schiavo mob's agenda, and I am appalled to hear that the GOP has hinge-head with respect to these people. I am suspending donations to the GOP until such time as I am satisfied that they have taken steps to prevent a repetition of this fiasco. I am not going to work GOTV in 2006 if the religious right remains in the driver's seat. And, if the Terribot mob doesn't cool it, I won't even bother showing up to vote. And the GOP is going to hear about it in detail.

Revile me all you want. Just don't expect my up-to-now-undying support in return.

Loyalty is a two-way street. The religious right has shown exactly zero loyalty in return for the tremendous loyalty given them in the past two weeks. Until they make it clear that they are going to go just as far in their loyalty to the GOP as the GOP did in loyalty to them, I am staying out of the political fray.

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.

The window slammed shut on the nuclear option because the less-than-fanatic end of the GOP caucus now has very real reason to question the judgement of the leadership.

The religious right just cost us bigtime. And they're threatening to cost us more because they didn't get their way. The GOP can either be really stupid, and try to appease them, or the GOP can start treating the religious right as the spoiled, ungrateful children that they act like. I will not support stupidity with my time, treasure, and talents.

83 posted on 03/31/2005 3:51:04 PM PST by Poohbah (I'm in the WPPFF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

DeLay is making a fool of himself

Then I guess, making a fool of himself is the right thing to do.


84 posted on 03/31/2005 3:51:34 PM PST by westmichman (Pray for global warming. Friend of Ronnie -(stolen from The Patriot))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Enjoy your emanating penumbras. Your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution would make Anthony Kennedy proud. Perhaps you could find some international law from Nigeria or Thailand to support your view. You certainly won't find it in the plain meaning of constitutional text.


85 posted on 03/31/2005 3:52:02 PM PST by peyton randolph (Warning! It is illegal to fatwah a camel in all 50 states)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Go, DeLay! He's really PO'd. (Me, too.)


86 posted on 03/31/2005 3:52:11 PM PST by Saundra Duffy ("Where there's life, there's hope." Theresa Marie SCHINDLER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
It does not empower Congress to determine any aspect of how court proceeding will be conducted.

They create the law under which the rules of procedure are derived. They can rewrite the laws any way they wish.

87 posted on 03/31/2005 3:54:29 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Spunky
I don't understand all the legalize, but why would he have had to do this?

Because the courts aren't supposed to reach beyond the evidence presented to them. The burden, once that law was passed, was squarely on Gibbs. We get snarky when Justice Kennedy starts citing foreign law. In this case, the courts stayed within the boundaries of the law, and now we're PO'd at them because they didn't take an activist posture.

Didn't the congress file it with the courts asking to do a de novo?

Congress filed no case. They merely passed a law.

88 posted on 03/31/2005 3:54:32 PM PST by Poohbah (I'm in the WPPFF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph
" Three words: On What Grounds?"

Impersonating a human being

89 posted on 03/31/2005 3:54:47 PM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Bzzzzt. Wrong.

The mere possibility that a question of federal law might arise is being sufficient to satisfy the "arising under"
jurisdictional authorization of Article III [Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803), Chief Justice Marshall].
And THAT should have removed the insect-brain Pinellas Nazi Magistrate Judge.

90 posted on 03/31/2005 3:56:04 PM PST by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: LRS
Thats the same malarkey he said about the IRAQ war.
Basically, that's what Teddy and the rest of the liberals have been saying for years, but, most people don't care what they have to say except discus how irreverent their words really are.
91 posted on 03/31/2005 3:57:06 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Usurping the Constitution. Judges are not law onto themselves. Their job is to interpret law, not make law. Also, they do not have the right to ignore the other two branches of government.

Congress has the right to call to task judges who overstep their mandate. It is just that for the past decades they haven't done it because to do so requires intestinal fortitude, which is in very short supply in both branches of Congress.

92 posted on 03/31/2005 3:57:07 PM PST by Parmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Prince Caspian

Federal judges should make sure that people know they are not advocating violence against the justice. Opps too late.


93 posted on 03/31/2005 3:57:16 PM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Congress should have ordered the Schindlers to get new attorneys.

And frankly, the congressional bill they did pass was almost certainly unconstitutional. Michael's attorneys didn't bother with that argument, as far as I know, because the Schindlers attorneys showed up at a gunfight with a water pistol.

94 posted on 03/31/2005 3:58:07 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Spunky
Do you have a link you could post for me so I can read it?

If you haven't read it, how the devil do you justify asserting what it contains?

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/bill31905.html

95 posted on 03/31/2005 3:59:23 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
And frankly, the congressional bill they did pass was almost certainly unconstitutional.

On what grounds?

96 posted on 03/31/2005 4:00:31 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Here is the Impeach Judge Greer Signup Site:

http://www.petitiononline.com/ijg520/petition.html

97 posted on 03/31/2005 4:00:52 PM PST by agincourt1415 (4 More Years of NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fitzcarraldo
Two words: DO IT

BTTT with that sentiment.

98 posted on 03/31/2005 4:00:56 PM PST by berkeleybeej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
The mere possibility that a question of federal law might arise is being sufficient to satisfy the "arising under" jurisdictional authorization of Article III [Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803), Chief Justice Marshall].

You are correct about that part. If that was all Congress had done there would've been no problem. What they did was go a step further and dictate how the actual legal proceeding would be conducted in court. That's a violation of the separation of powers.

99 posted on 03/31/2005 4:01:47 PM PST by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Absent any new evidence then what grounds did the judge have for overturning a decision that had been upheld before?

Obviously, he had none. As for the law itself, it was an amazingly bad one. Tinkering with appellate review procedures to affect the outcome of one case ought to boggle the mind of anyone concerned with the idea of "rule of law." I now understand why the U.S. Constitution prohibits Bills of Attainder.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." - James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

100 posted on 03/31/2005 4:02:28 PM PST by aQ_code_initiate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 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