Tom DeLay...Shameless political opportunist

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Bullypulpit, Apr 1, 2005.

  1. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    <center><h1><font color=red>He has no shame...</font></h1></center>

    Unable to wait until Terri Schiavo's corpse had cooled, let alone been interred, Tom DeLay just <b><i>HAD</i></b> to open his foul, foetid blowhole...<i><b>AGAIN</b></i>.

    <blockquote>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. - <a href=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=631317>ABC News</a></blockquote>

    This in regards to the percieved failure of the federal courts to act on the federal version of "Terri's Law". He called the failure of the federal courts to order the re-insertion of her feeding tube a <i> "...perfect example of an out of control judiciary..."</i>. What he convenienlty failed to mention is that the 11th circuit, based in Atlanta, is one of the most conservative federal court jurisdictions in the country. Nor did he mention that <a href=http://legalaffairs.org/howappealing/20q/2003_10_01_20q-appellateblog_archive.html>Judge Stanley Birch</a>, who wrote the <a href=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/03/breaking-news-federal-appeals-court_30.php>opinion<a> jarshly critical of Congress and Dubbyuh's involvement in the case is one of the most conservative judges on the federal bench.

    According to Judge Birch, this effort by the Legislative and Executive branches was a violation of the separation of powers laid down in the Constitution. They did so by <i>"...arrogating vital judicial functions to itself..."</i>. This is not an "out of control liberal judge" talking. This is a rock solid contitutional conservative judge saying the things that the so-called conservaitve in Congress should have been saying.

    But that's what the principle of checks and balances is all about. And if the judiciary finds the stance of the Legislative and Executive branches to be untenable or unacceptable on Constitutional grounds, that's the way the system was meant to work. The Republic will collapse under its own weight in the absence of independent judiciary. This attack by DeLay is yet another volley in the battle by this administration and its backers to hamstring the judiciary, thus controlling all three branches of government.

    But I can't help wondering though when Tom DeLay will be held to answer for his behavior.

    Citations:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=631317

    http://legalaffairs.org/howappealing/20q/2003_10_01_20q-appellateblog_archive.html

    http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/03/breaking-news-federal-appeals-court_30.php
     
  2. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    Eh, he has a right to Free Speech.

    It is doubtful he will be "called to account" for his actions and it is likely he is pandering to his constituency and therefore insuring he will be returned to the Congress.

    He also would know he has no support for impeaching the Judges and he is just spinning his wheels.

    Deep Breathely Bully, it isn't the end of the world.
     
  3. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    question......please name a politician that is not a shameless political opportunist....i am pretty sure it is a job requirement
     
  4. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,885
    Thanks Received:
    1,609
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,158
    Failed legal system?

    Impeach judges?

    Answer for their behavior?

    Out of control judges?

    If this is what DeLay is saying and advocating, I say

    BRING THE HAMMER DOWN!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,153
    Bully I think your argument that the 11th circuit is the most conservative court strengthens Delay's argument.

    We have an out of control judiciary. whether they are Conservative or liberal They are addicted to the power they think they have. The power in this nation doesn't reside in appointed judges. The power of this nation resides in the people. This past week the federal judiciary just flipped off the people. Rather than enforcing the laws created by the duly elected representatives of the people they decided to make themselves more powerful. If you have any love for freedom this would seriously bother you.
     
  6. ReillyT
    Offline

    ReillyT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +164
    The federal courts in this case were not activist. The law expanded jurisdiction to the federal courts but did not mandate a stay being issued (and in fact, floor dialogue during passage of the bill made clear that existing law was to be applied). The federal courts entertained the motions, and using existing law on whether to issues stays, determined that a stay was not appropriate here. They did exactly what they were supposed to do.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Actually they were directed to do rehearing of evidence, a de novo look at the case. The judges were too reactionary in their wagon circling to oblige this simple, constitutional request. A citizen's life was at stake, ya know.
     
  8. ReillyT
    Offline

    ReillyT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +164
    If you knew anything about the law, you would know that this is not permissible. The statute expanded the jurisdiction of the courts to hear federal claims. A federal court does not have Constitutional authority to hear state claims. Federal courts can only hear cases "arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." The probate laws of the state of Florida do not arise under the Constitution of the U.S. or substantive U.S. law, but under the constitution of the State of Florida. The only federal claims available to the Schindlers were due process claims, which the federal courts looked at de novo, and based upon the unlikely nature of the Schindlers succeeding on those claims, declined to issue a stay.
     
  9. ReillyT
    Offline

    ReillyT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +164
    I shouldn't have said "if you knew anything about the law." This is actually a rather fine point, but an important one.
     
  10. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Sure it's permissible.
     

Share This Page