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 ...
I had heard about this article, but hadn't read it. Thanks for the link.
You are very welcome.
Let's look at the information from the report eh?
Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive. Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery. There was additional, difficult testimony that appeared to establish that despite the sad and undesirable condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy from having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware of her environment given the persistent vegetative state. Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial,
So they admit she was in a PVS. They admit that even if she wanted to die, they wouldn't let her. They state their selfishness of derivation of joy from her simply existing instead of allowing nature to have taken its course.
And what about Michael Schiavo? he would allow her to slowly rot away, develop infections, and get gangrene, let it progress until she died of shock, and never provide proper treatment? Because if your limbs have no more circulation, you are going to lose them with or without surgery. Michael Schiavo did leave her bedsores untreated. And for this he should be commended? It was a trick question, designed to try to promote outrage against the schindlers,when it should have been against Michael.
Ah good hyperbole. Unfortunately none of it is true is it?
After the malpractice case judgment, evidence of disaffection between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo openly emerged for the first time. The Schindlers petitioned the court to remove Michael as Guardian. They made allegations that he was not caring for Theresa, and that his behavior was disruptive to Theresa's treatment and condition.
Proceedings concluded that there was no basis for the removal of Michael as Guardian. Further, it was determined that he had been very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as "a nursing home administrator's nightmare". It is notable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa's collapse, she has never had a bedsore.
---------------
n early 1994 Theresa contracted a urinary tract infection and Michael, in consultation with Theresa's treating physician, elected not to treat the infection and simultaneously imposed a "do not resuscitate" order should Theresa experience cardiac arrest. When the nursing facility initiated an intervention to challenge this decision, Michael cancelled the orders. Following the incident involving the infection, Theresa was transferred to another skilled nursing facility.
Michael's decision not to treat was based upon discussions and consultation with Theresa's doctor, and was predicated on his reasoned belief that there was no longer any hope for Theresa's recovery. It had taken Michael more than three years to accommodate this reality and he was beginning to accept the idea of allowing Theresa to die naturally rather than remain in the non-cognitive, vegetative state. It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating. But this was just prior to the malpractice case ending.
All pulled from the report to Gov. Bush in 2003. But I guess he was in on the conspiracy too wasn't he?
Yes, thank you. Hadn't seen that article. Very well balanced and just reporting the facts. Thanks for the link
Anytime! I'm a "just the facts" gal...even though they don't matter.
Well, that pretty much means it will be discounted. As it already has been by at least one poster. LOL! But at least I agree with you.
Exactly. No one wants to think long term, if we bend the rule of law this time for an emotional issue, then what happens when the left takes the cue and bends it for their cause?
Slippery slope and all that, but thank god the system worked, because in a year or two everyone would be screaming and yelling about the left disregarding the rule of law, like they did during the Bush/Gore election. But memories are selective I guess, and folks only want to censor the views they don't agree with.
Would you have supported all those judges ignoring the rule of law like they did if it had resulted in Terri being allowed to live? Or do you only support judges ignoring the rule of law when it results in murder?
Nothing but hemming hawing doublespeak and finally crickets. Which is typical, no argumentation skills, just empty rhetoric and invective. But it makes for unintentional fun.
Yes, I would have, because I entrust the judges to make the right decision using the evidence presented before them and interpreting the law.
I don't see why everyone here suddenly hates the judges, I think a good portion of it may lie in a bit of jealousy and lack of self worth.
I supported the rule of law during the Bush/Gore recounts, and am just being consistent.
Supporting the rule of law during the Bush/Gore recount, and opposing the rule of law for Terri is not consistent.
Yes, it is.
Every judge that saw the Schaivo case ruled against the parents. Now, if there were some level of doubt that would not have happened.
God bless Terri's parents, they meant well, but they could not let go, instead they turned this whole thing into a huge media event, where scores of people from both sides exploited her to no end.
You are not gonna change my point of view, I won't change yours, but I appreciate that we could debate without any nasty names being bandied about, I appreciate that.
So the fact that all of the judges broke the law means that they upheld the law? That's impossible.
Completely consistent. The Bush/Gore case had to go to the federal system as the decision directly affected a national political race. However, the Schiavo case would not, at least according to the author of the Constitution, be a national issue. It was clearly within the confines of the state's powers, and should have remained within the state court system. For the record, Greer also did not create new law but upheld previous precedent, in effect following the existing rule of law.
No, the fact of the matter is, Greer broke many laws. But for some, the end justifies the means, so that's okay. As long as it paves the way for whatever it is you're planning, no problem!
That is your interpretation, if it is really the case, then by all means, press charges if you think you have a shot.
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.