Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DeLay Apologizes for Schiavo Case Rhetoric
AP via Yahoo ^ | April 13, 2005 | Terence Hunt

Posted on 04/13/2005 8:21:32 PM PDT by cyncooper

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay apologized Wednesday for using overheated rhetoric on the day Terri Schiavo died, but refused to say whether he supports impeachment of the judges who ruled in her case.

~snip~

At a crowded news conference in his Capitol office, DeLay addressed remarks he made in the hours after the brain-damaged Florida woman died on March 31. "I said something in an inartful way and I shouldn't have said it that way and I apologize for saying it that way," DeLay told reporters.

~snip~

DeLay seemed at pains to soften, if slightly, his rhetoric of March 31, when Schiavo died despite an extraordinary political and legal effort to save her life.

"I believe in an independent judiciary. I repeat, of course I believe in an independent judiciary," DeLay said.

At the same time, he added, the Constitution gives Congress power to oversee the courts.

"We set up the courts. We can unset the courts. We have the power of the purse," DeLay said.

Asked whether he favors impeachment for any of the judges in the Schiavo case, he did not answer directly.

Instead, he referred reporters to an earlier request he made to the House Judiciary Committee to look into "judicial activism" and Schiavo's case in particular.

~snip~

(Excerpt) Read more at story.news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: apology; cowardaceunderfire; delay; grovelingissafer; schiavo; thewormturns
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560561-580581-600 ... 1,021-1,034 next last
To: EternalVigilance

Confidence man? Sounds like Dr. Keyes!

EV, you are a pearl, you never change, just the same old invective, all heat, no light. Ping me next time you opus.


561 posted on 04/14/2005 1:27:26 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Remember when conservatives embraced the rule of law?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter

Have you ever stood at the bedside of someone when the doctors told you there was no hope? Someone hooked up to machines or feeding tubes?

As we get older, sadly, most of us have. All too often. And this kind of situation has been handled between families and doctors for longer than either of us has been alive.

I've yet to meet someone who says they wish to be kept alive by machines or tubes. And every single time I've stood next to such an unfortunate patient, someone has nudged me and said "don't let that happen to me."

So it doesn't really matter what I think. It matters that several judges and courts heard the evidence and decided it was valid. And since most everyone any of us has evern known has felt the same way, it rang true to them.


562 posted on 04/14/2005 1:27:38 PM PDT by Peach (The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever killed or captured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: freepertoo
Spare me. He had the right. He had the DUTY!

Of course you can't provide the specific placement of that power under Article II Section 2 where this power is found. Of course you can't but don't let that bother you. Statements, words practically in stone, and simple facts don't matter apparently. I would refer this statement to you

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

If you would bother to read where that came from (any conservative should know the source)and note the author, you would see facts and limitations of power do matter.

563 posted on 04/14/2005 1:28:01 PM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter
"No, I am not for sure of Terri's wishes, therefore, we should err on the side of life."

Well, not really - the test is not whether yellowdoghunter is sure. The test is whether the evidence, as presented to the Court (as distinguished from what you may hear in a Father Pavone presser) is "clear and convincing." The trial judge found that it was. The 2nd District Court of Appeals agreed.

It is interesting that so many people believe that the judgment they make from information in the reviled media allows them to have a clearer view of the facts than those who follow rules of evidence which have been tested and refined for hundreds of years and who actually hear how some of these stories will stand up when put to the test.

It is also interesting that those who are willing to believe an alleged doctor posting on a blog - unconditionally - will take a nothing fact like an election contribution by a lawyer to a judge [if you think this isn't a staple of every judicial election, you need to have some more coffee] and try to create some huge conflict of interest over it.

It is a question of going where the facts lead, or making up your mind and finding "facts" to support that position.

564 posted on 04/14/2005 1:28:20 PM PDT by lugsoul ("maybe those who are defending this judicial murder could be said to be WORSE than Nazis." - EV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

I thought he'd opus'ed and was leaving. Glad I wasn't imagining that.


565 posted on 04/14/2005 1:28:42 PM PDT by Peach (The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever killed or captured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: Peach

To most of FR, that would be a personal attack - the "lawyerly" part. Perhaps I should hit abuse. ;-)


566 posted on 04/14/2005 1:29:13 PM PDT by lugsoul ("maybe those who are defending this judicial murder could be said to be WORSE than Nazis." - EV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

I thought you'd appreciate it more than Nazi. LOL


567 posted on 04/14/2005 1:29:58 PM PDT by Peach (The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever killed or captured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: Peach

He opused a bunch of times during the last campaign, some folks didn't care for Keyes, so he whined and tried to have them banned, then he stormed off, never to return.

Until he did, again and again.


568 posted on 04/14/2005 1:30:43 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Remember when conservatives embraced the rule of law?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: KDD
"I am 100% sure that those who were charged with making that determination had clear and convincing evidence that she did not."

Really? You sat through the trial? Because if you didn't, and you make this statement, then you must not have the slightest idea what "clear and convincing evidence" is.

569 posted on 04/14/2005 1:30:50 PM PDT by lugsoul ("maybe those who are defending this judicial murder could be said to be WORSE than Nazis." - EV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 552 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter
You're wrong. I suspect you're just a tad jealous that the big dogs haven't invited you off the porch to go over and play with them.

BTW, they are entitled to meet on the www anywhere, anytime they want. You just like to eavesdrop, tsk, tsk.

sw

570 posted on 04/14/2005 1:30:57 PM PDT by spectre (Spectre's wife (www.cadresRus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter

SO CORRECT!


571 posted on 04/14/2005 1:32:13 PM PDT by beyond the sea (Advanced Directive -- don't step on my blue suede shoes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter
"FR is pro-life"

Yes we are. What's your point? NO one should ever remove any life support?

sw

572 posted on 04/14/2005 1:35:09 PM PDT by spectre (Spectre's wife (www.cadresRus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 560 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter
Danke.................... I will go read the mission statement agoin!

This is a great site............

Bless the fine ones.

573 posted on 04/14/2005 1:36:18 PM PDT by beyond the sea (Advanced Directive -- don't step on my blue suede shoes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: Peach
I must have been smarter back then and just avoided threads that looked like so much conspiracy theory.

Rivero's threads ran the range from believable to really whacky. But most of the subject material was topical, e.g., Ron Brown, John Huang, Vince Foster, etc. I'm surprised you avoided those.

Anyway, point being that the hypotheses advanced here, and quality of supporting reseach and analysis, is always in a state of flux.

574 posted on 04/14/2005 1:36:36 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

575 posted on 04/14/2005 1:37:55 PM PDT by Graymatter (a Terri Schiavo Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I don't remember him on the Foster threads but I think I did avoid the others.


576 posted on 04/14/2005 1:41:21 PM PDT by Peach (The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever killed or captured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Matters not whether I sat through the trial...I was not charged with finding clear and convincing evidence of anything relating to this case and neither were you.

I said...

"I am 100% sure that those who were charged with making that determination had clear and convincing evidence that she did not."

The outcome bears out my assertion.

If ya'll had your way and Congress established a "Public Court of Appeals"...even then I believe most people would not want to have to bear the existence that Terri did, nor would they demand others do so.
577 posted on 04/14/2005 1:43:12 PM PDT by KDD (just the facts please)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
Ping me next time you opus.

There would have to be a first time.

578 posted on 04/14/2005 1:44:15 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ("It's better to trust in the Lord, than to put confidence in man." -Psalm 118:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
Ping me next time you opus.

There would have to be a first time.

579 posted on 04/14/2005 1:44:22 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ("It's better to trust in the Lord, than to put confidence in man." -Psalm 118:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
First, he would have to be impeached, by a conservative House of Reprentatives, then convicted by a Republican Senate, then charged with a crime...the crime of overruling a penny-ante GOP RINO judge on an issue of the Constitution of the United States...

and while that was all being perpetrated by the libs - even if they knew it was futile - it would bring the administration to a halt - which would satisfy them - and tear down half of what Bush has accomplished and all that he still can,,,

580 posted on 04/14/2005 1:47:23 PM PDT by maine-iac7 ("...BUT YOU CAN'T FOOL ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME." Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560561-580581-600 ... 1,021-1,034 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
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson