Tom DeLay...Shameless political opportunist

[musicman]

We're going to have to think of something to get even with Bully. The rotten sonofabitch suckered me good with that one.

LOL! Directive to all members of USMB:

Bullypulpit must die!

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Well, first of all, please allow me to apologize if my post seemed to take an imperious tone. Obviously, neither of us is going to move the other off his stance on federal intervention in the Schiavo case. However, that doesn't diminish my respect for you in the slightest.

You'll concede, though, won't you, that the letter posted by Bully is a nakedly shameless attempt to manufacture hysteria out of whole cloth? It's one of the oldest plays in the liberal handbook, and I have to say that this is perhaps the most disgusting example of the tactic I've ever seen.

while I have the same respect for you MM, it seems to me that the republican party has lost a lot of credibility by resorting to the same tactics that the dems have used for all these years.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

This is liberalism's bare-assed audacity at its worst! Alec Baldwin instructs Americans to KILL HENRY HYDE, and no one bats an eye. But THIS - well, Mr. DeLay had better apologize.

If he backs off his statement by one iota, I'm killing him myself.

Who's alec baldwin?

 

[musicman]

while I have the same respect for you MM,

Right back at ya, Smarter!

it seems to me that the republican party has lost a lot of credibility by resorting to the same tactics that the dems have used for all these years.

And I strongly disagree. That's where a lot of us on the board seem to be with this thing. I guess the only thing to do is realize it takes all kinds to make a world, and carry on with it.

 

[musicman]

Who's alec baldwin?

LMAO! Who, indeed?

 

[archangel]

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.

I'm sorry but I agree with Tom Delay...The Federal court system is out of control and owes their alligance to the ACLU...Their decisions were not based on law..they just upheld the decision of Judge George Greer...a back water judge.....who owes his soul to the ACLU also! It is time for America to reform the Judicial system...I say no more appointments for life..either make the appointments last for the duration of the appointers term...or make them elected postions so the electorate has some say in bad decisions! :duh3:

 

[ReillyT]

I'm sorry but I agree with Tom Delay...The Federal court system is out of control and owes their alligance to the ACLU...Their decisions were not based on law..they just upheld the decision of Judge George Greer...a back water judge.....who owes his soul to the ACLU also! It is time for America to reform the Judicial system...I say no more appointments for life..either make the appointments last for the duration of the appointers term...or make them elected postions so the electorate has some say in bad decisions! :duh3:

1. I would guess that the federal judiciary is primarily Republican appointed (4 of the last 6 presidential terms have been Republican, although GW just started his second term), so I would doubt they owe allegiance to the ACLU. For that matter, I really don't think any of the judges do.

2. From what I have read, Judge Greer is a republican and conservative, and so I am guessing he doesn't owe his allegiance to the ACLU either. Although if you can show me something in his Pinellas County probate decisions that would suggest otherwise, please do so.

3. He may be "backwater," but he is a judge elected by the people. He has an obligation and responsibility to carry out his mandate to the best of his abilities, no matter who may disagree with him.

4. Because of the structure of our government and the protections it provides, a "backwater" state judge has as much authority in his realm as the Congress of the United States does in its. I think that preserves the powers of the state and is a good thing.

5. The judiciary doesn't serve at the behest of popular opinion for a good reason. Popular majority opinion may myopically infringe on the rights of individuals when emotions run high and the notion suits them. It is for this reason that the judiciary acts as a reign on majoritarian pressures and protects the individual through the fulfillment of the Constitution. You and I may disagree with individual results, but it serves a protective function nonetheless. Without a forceful judiciary, we wouldn't have many of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights we hold dear.

Police must have "reasonable suspicion" to stop and pat down people on the street. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1.

"Prior restraint" by government to prevent publication of materials is generally unconstitutional. Near v. MN (1931)

Evidence obtained through illegal searches is subject to exclusionary rule. Mapp v. OH (1961)

Person has a federal right to legal representation when state attempts to deprive them of life or liberty. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

In order to punish someone for their speech, the government must show that the speech presents a "clear and present danger." Schenck v United States (1919).

New York State prosecution of a defendant for advocating socialism is rejected by the courts. The Supreme Court stated "for present purposes, we may assume that freedom of speech and of press...are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the State." Gitlow v. New York (1925)

All of these cases protect the individual from oppression by the government. Most of the rights that spring from these cases we now take for granted. Some of the cases were controversial or unpopular at the time. I wonder how these cases might have come out differently if Judges had to worry about being re-elected by the people.

 

[ReillyT]

I somehow also forgot the most significant case of this nature. Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka. Even though it merely stated what I think most people on this Board take for granted - the government can't discriminate on the basis of race (please leave Affirmative Action for another thread), it was so controversial at the time that the Court went to great pains to make the decision unanimous and even tempered it with the phrase "with all deliberate speed," so that it would not be uniformly ignored by many of the southern states. If the Justices were elected, I doubt that this decision would have come about when it did, even as late in the game as it did.

 

[archangel]

1. I would guess that the federal judiciary is primarily Republican appointed (4 of the last 6 presidential terms have been Republican, although GW just started his second term), so I would doubt they owe allegiance to the ACLU. For that matter, I really don't think any of the judges do.

2. From what I have read, Judge Greer is a republican and conservative, and so I am guessing he doesn't owe his allegiance to the ACLU either. Although if you can show me something in his Pinellas County probate decisions that would suggest otherwise, please do so.

3. He may be "backwater," but he is a judge elected by the people. He has an obligation and responsibility to carry out his mandate to the best of his abilities, no matter who may disagree with him.

4. Because of the structure of our government and the protections it provides, a "backwater" state judge has as much authority in his realm as the Congress of the United States does in its. I think that preserves the powers of the state and is a good thing.

5. The judiciary doesn't serve at the behest of popular opinion for a good reason. Popular majority opinion may myopically infringe on the rights of individuals when emotions run high and the notion suits them. It is for this reason that the judiciary acts as a reign on majoritarian pressures and protects the individual through the fulfillment of the Constitution. You and I may disagree with individual results, but it serves a protective function nonetheless. Without a forceful judiciary, we wouldn't have many of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights we hold dear.

Police must have "reasonable suspicion" to stop and pat down people on the street. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1.

"Prior restraint" by government to prevent publication of materials is generally unconstitutional. Near v. MN (1931)

Evidence obtained through illegal searches is subject to exclusionary rule. Mapp v. OH (1961)

Person has a federal right to legal representation when state attempts to deprive them of life or liberty. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

In order to punish someone for their speech, the government must show that the speech presents a "clear and present danger." Schenck v United States (1919).

New York State prosecution of a defendant for advocating socialism is rejected by the courts. The Supreme Court stated "for present purposes, we may assume that freedom of speech and of press...are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the State." Gitlow v. New York (1925)

All of these cases protect the individual from oppression by the government. Most of the rights that spring from these cases we now take for granted. Some of the cases were controversial or unpopular at the time. I wonder how these cases might have come out differently if Judges had to worry about being re-elected by the people.

Excuse me but Judge George Greer was put into office by contributions from George Felos (aka ACLU operative)..In case you forgot Mr.(used loosley) George (the ACLU attorney) Felos was also on the Board of the infamous Hospice that Terri Schiavo met her demise at...and for your info alot of wannabee Supreme Court Justices started out okay then fell victim to the ACLU money &power trap...does "Devils Advocate"ring a bell?....ACLU=Anti Christ Legions Unleashed...sad but true and we all must eliminate this scourge on society>>>>>ACLU if the glove fits,you must not equit!!!!!