Tom DeLay...Shameless political opportunist

[Bullypulpit]

<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

 

[no1tovote4]

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.

 

[manu1959]

question......please name a politician that is not a shameless political opportunist....i am pretty sure it is a job requirement

 

[ScreamingEagle]

<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

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!

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

 

[ReillyT]

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.

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.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

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.

 

[ReillyT]

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.

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.

 

[ReillyT]

I shouldn't have said "if you knew anything about the law." This is actually a rather fine point, but an important one.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

Sure it's permissible.

 

[ReillyT]

Sure it's permissible.

Do you want to back that up with a legal basis, or is this where we stand?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Do you want to back that up with a legal basis, or is this where we stand?

Isn't it true that individuals have rights at the federal level?

Yes, or no please, counselor.

 

[ReillyT]

Isn't it true that individuals have rights at the federal level?

Yes, or no please, counselor.

Please don't try to limit my ability to provide you with a clue by requesting just a yes or no.

However, in this case, the answer is yes.

 

[CivilLiberty]

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.

Exactly - not activist judges, judges acting acting in strict accordance with the law, as spelled out in *federal* law, which is based in the US constitution, and the laws made under it's power.

"Activist judges" is a clever marketing term like "tort reform" - an act of misdirection that politicians are using when judges strike down laws that are illegal under the constitution, which has supremacy.


A

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Please don't try to limit my ability to provide you with a clue by requesting just a yes or no.

However, in this case, the answer is yes.

Your abilities are not limited by me; maybe it was yer momma that did it.

 

[ReillyT]

Your abilities are not limited by me; maybe it was yer momma that did it.

Okay, manchild. I answered yes. Do you have a point to make?

 

[Merlin1047]

We have an out of control judiciary. whether they are Conservative or liberal They are addicted to the power they think they have.

That statement is somewhat overblown. Yes there is no shortage of judges whose rulings are outrageous. But to extrapolate that to a broad brush condemnation of the judiciary as a whole is both inaccurate and unwarranted.

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.

That's also not an entirely true statement. The power of government is supposed to be divided equally between three branches of government, the judiciary being one of those. The judiciary was intended to wield power in direct proportion to any other branch of government. But having said that, I would have no problem whatever with an amendment to the Constitution which would require all federal judges up to and including the Supreme Court to be elected by the people.

As I see it, you and several other folks on the board have both a blind spot and a determined double standard in regard to the judiciary in general and the Schiavo case in particular. You don't like activist judges who create their own laws except when you don't agree with the law. Then you expect the judge to look beyond the law and rule in a manner agreeable to you. It seems to me that Judge Greer meticulously applied the law of the state of Florida. That's his job. If you want to argue that some of his decisions were flawed, that's a legitimate issue. But you can't squawk when a judge upholds the law - which is EXACTLY what he is charged to do.

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.

Avatar, the judiciary doesn't give a rat's ass about the will of the people. And they shouldn't. The judiciary is charged with operating within the laws which the people through their elected representatives have handed them. If the will of the people is all that mattered, then we would have no need for judges. We could simply have weekly town hall meetings and vote on the guilt or innocence of a defendant based on whether we agree or disagree with his actions. If you can point to an example where Judge Greer flouted the law and followed his own preferences, then I will cede this point to you. But I believe that you are simply allowing your own personal ethics and morals to color your evaluation of this judge's performance and you are totally ignoring the constraints of the Florida law which this judge is sworn to uphold.

I believe that the basic problem with this case is the law which placed Terri Schiavo's fate solely within the hands of a "husband" whose motives are highly suspect.

If you have any love for freedom this would seriously bother you.

Believe me, I treasure our freedoms more than most. And I am alarmed by those of you who would cheerfully compromise the very foundations of our Constitution in your zeal to apply your personal ethics to this one particular case. I believe that those who willingly turn a blind eye to the potential harm that is being done to our system of government by the actions of hacks like DeLay and Santorum present a far greater threat to our basic freedoms than any activist judge.

No one person is greater than the Constitution. No person's life is worth compromising the principles of the Constitution. If you truly value freedom, you have to look beyond the emotionalism of the particulars and defend the Constitution against erosion by the shameless, cheap, self-serving hucksters who have recently surfaced to peddle their snake oil in the name of "saving" Terri Schiavo.

Thank you. I shall now put my soap box back in the closet.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Do you want to back that up with a legal basis, or is this where we stand?

The only legal basis I believe the Republican Congressional leadership and this administration has lies in the fact that they are in power...with majorities in both houses of Congress and sitting in the White House, and thus are above the law

 

[Bullypulpit]

Exactly - not activist judges, judges acting acting in strict accordance with the law, as spelled out in *federal* law, which is based in the US constitution, and the laws made under it's power.

"Activist judges" is a clever marketing term like "tort reform" - an act of misdirection that politicians are using when judges strike down laws that are illegal under the constitution, which has supremacy.


A

We also shouldn't forget that the federal "Terri's Law" is, in essence, a Bill of Attainder and pertaining to a single individual. It is, therefore, unconstitutional.

 

[no1tovote4]

We also shouldn't forget that the federal "Terri's Law" is, in essence, a Bill of Attainder and pertaining to a single individual. It is, therefore, unconstitutional.

This would only apply in a Criminal case and therefore it is not unconstitutional BP.