Shays: DeLay Should Quit As House Leader

SFC ^ | April 10, 2005 | LOU KESTEN

[FairOpinion]

"Tom's conduct is hurting the Republican Party, is hurting this Republican majority and it is hurting any Republican who is up for re-election," Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., told The Associated Press in an interview, calling for DeLay to step down as majority leader.

DeLay "becomes the poster child for a lot of the things the Democrats think are wrong about Republican leadership. As long as he's there, he's going to become a pretty good target," Dodd said on ABC.

[rockrr]

I wrote a song in honor of my new bestest friend who done set me straight about that dastardly Tom DeLay:

Tom DeLay has got to go
Da New York Times has told me so
CNN and WaPo too
They all told me what to do

Trust the Mainstream Media
Trust the Mainstream Media
Trust the Mainstream Media
Trust the Mainstream Media
Would they lie to you?

[PhilDragoo]

Tom Delay rocks, and I never pass up a chance to call, fax or email him, Frist, my reps, W to tell them I think so.

Chris Shays sucks--the slimestream media is going to get a disease cozying up to him.

Remember Rep. Chris Shays, R-CT, who asked for a personal meeting with Clinton before casting his vote? Coincidentally, Shays' wife received a presidential appointment as head of the Peace Corps' Work Wize Schools Program before the congressman cast his vote against impeachment.

Joseph Farah

And never forget the record for lobbying fees was taken by wife of New Mexico Democrat Senator Jeff Bingaman, Anne, who, after doing Reno's antitrust dirty work, made two million for six month's lobbying the FCC on behalf of Global Crossings sold to ChiCom bud Li Kashing making Terry McAuliffe eighteen million.

Shays and Jeffords should just tie the knot and get out of dodge.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Why the h*ll would he give up the only leadership role the Repubs have? Name the last time a scum sucking democrat ever gave up a position of leadership for any cause whatsoever?

[billbears]

Why the h*ll would he give up the only leadership role the Repubs have? Name the last time a scum sucking democrat ever gave up a position of leadership for any cause whatsoever?

That's the partisan spirit. They did it, so why shouldn't we. Because conservatives should hold themselves to a higher standard.

[billbears]

Or do you just want to destroy a conservative

The bill should have never reached the President's desk. Conservatives, if there are any left in the Republican party, should have stood with the Democrats and stated clearly that this was a state issue, which it was.

Those that advocate change and misusage of the Constitution to pander to individual groups for political points are not conservative. They are, whether you like it or not, advocating a liberal position. As to Delay's other dealings as I stated, where there is smoke, there is usually fire. And around Delay, there's been an awful lot of smoke of late

[sofaman]

You pinhead, Christopher Shays is NOT OUR OWN. Puhleeze, give me a break!

You really should try the decaf. There is an R after Shays' name. Therfore, whether you like it or not, Mr Shays is a Republican.

You can call me whatever names you want, you're wrong.

Btw, you proved my point....pinhead.

[johnb838]

Whut?

[F.J. Mitchell]

Holding yourself to a higher standard than the thugs you are in a life or death, eye gouging, groin kicking, back stabbing brawl with, only buys you the privilege of dying with the smug knowledge that you fought like a gentleman.

Only the Democrats and their sick agendas benefit from such a prissy @$$ attitude by too many Republicans.

The dirty dims will never allow the GOP to win a pretty victory-so aesthetics bedamned! A ugly victory is still a win for the good guys.

[Burlem]

http://house.gov

http://senate.gov

I found e-mail addresses and telephone numbers for De Lay and Shays, I e-mailed both,
I asked Mr. De Lay to hang in there he is needed, amongst other things. I told Shays he should be ashamed for eating his own, I asked him where he was, while Daschle's wife was lobbyist for airlines, Hillary's campaign manager and his illegal behavior that she was aware, Where was he?

[Just mythoughts]

"The bill should have never reached the President's desk. Conservatives, if there are any left in the Republican party, should have stood with the Democrats and stated clearly that this was a state issue, which it was."


You mean unlike a state having the say about sodomy????

Amazing, now days the supremes give sodomy a civil right and allow a state to kill an innocent woman!!!

[cwb]

"I would like to think so, but power has a very corrupting influence."

---

Yeah...well power is irrelevant unless you're in a position to use it. While Delay isn't one of my favorites, either, he is a guy who gets things done for Republicans. His work and redistricting of Texas gave "power" to Republicans that had been missing since Reconstruction...and will for the foreseeable future.

While I am not as socially conservative as Delay, this fight has become more about the mediacrats and their desires to dictate what we Republicans should accept. From Newt to Livingston to Lott...Republicans are expected to abandon their people because the mediacrats say so. Yet Democrats who do much worse, circle the wagons and defend at all costs.

Delay isn't being targeted for his indiscretions; he's being targeted...as Newt was, because he is viewed as the biggest threat to Democrats and their ideals. If this was truly about wrong-doing, half the leadership in the Democrat Party would've been removed long ago. It's time to draw a line...or the mediacrats will succeed at doing something they haven't been able do at the ballot box: WIN. And in the end, Republicans will be relegated to minority status (through attrition and a backlash)...were "power" will be the least of their concerns.

[KoRn]

"Yet Democrats who do much worse, circle the wagons and defend at all costs."

That's so true. Seems when the media drums up a bunch of charges some Republicans are in a race to see who will be on TV criticizing them first. When something like this happens with Democrats(which is rare because the media hardly ever reports on things they REALLY do wrong) they all get on message and defend their people to the death it seems.

[billbears]

The Supreme Court's decision on the Texas issue was wrong. But two wrongs don't make a right. If you would look how the Supreme Court broke down on both issues, at least from the opinions published by like cases, the conservative judges stood with the rights of the states to determine the case on both issues

[Just mythoughts]

"The Supreme Court's decision on the Texas issue was wrong. ....."


The supremes decision is now the law of the land in the Texas case.

Something very perverse is going on in this nation when civil rights outweigh the Bill of Rights. There is a specific right to life so stated within the Constitution and the courts of this nation ignored that right.

[billbears]

The supremes decision is now the law of the land in the Texas case

So you believe that the Supreme Court shouldn't have the power to legalize deviant behavior nationwide but should have the power to overturn state laws which no other court was able to find a problem with. Interesting.

There is a specific right to life so stated within the Constitution

Really? And to think all these years I was living under the delusion that the Constitution was designed to limit the national government's powers. Matter of fact I just searched for the phrase 'right to life' in the Constitution and mysteriously was unable to find it. Not even in the Bill of Rights. So I take it you disagree with Justice Scalia then

[Just mythoughts]

"So you believe that the Supreme Court shouldn't have the power to legalize deviant behavior nationwide but should have the power to overturn state laws which no other court was able to find a problem with. Interesting."

There is no said right to deviant behavior in the Constitution, whereas there is a specific right to LIFE. I know in this day and age it is unreasonable to expect our court system to follow the Constitution, rather than their own PRECEDENCE.


"Really? And to think all these years I was living under the delusion that the Constitution was designed to limit the national government's powers. Matter of fact I just searched for the phrase 'right to life' in the Constitution and mysteriously was unable to find it. Not even in the Bill of Rights. So I take it you disagree with Justice Scalia then"


Ah the STANDARD is that rights endowed by the CREATOR which include LIFE no man/government can take.

This is the standard that distinguishes this nation from all others. Remove that acknowledgment and we are no different than any communists "we are gods" system of government.

[billbears]

There is no said right to deviant behavior in the Constitution, whereas there is a specific right to LIFE. I know in this day and age it is unreasonable to expect our court system to follow the Constitution, rather than their own PRECEDENCE.

As I stated and requested before. Provide chapter and verse in the Constitution that gives us this specific right to life. The Constitution is a limitation of national government powers and nothing else

Ah the STANDARD is that rights endowed by the CREATOR which include LIFE no man/government can take.This is the standard that distinguishes this nation from all others. Remove that acknowledgment and we are no different than any communists "we are gods" system of government.

Yes, endowed rights by our Creator, natural rights if you will. And these rights are not to be infringed upon. However, from the author of the Constitution and a conservative Supreme Court Justice, the understanding of protection and enforcement of these natural rights lies at the feet of the respective states and not the United States government.

There is nothing in the Constitution, as much as we may have liked, that would have given the national government power in this situation in Florida. Delay listened to a family hoping beyond hope, a few kooks (i.e. Alan Keyes), and religious groups that don't care for the limitations in the Constitution but rather how they may use the document to force their views on this nation of states as a whole. He should be removed from his leadership position on the basis of that alone

[Just mythoughts]

"There is nothing in the Constitution, as much as we may have liked, that would have given the national government power in this situation in Florida. Delay listened to a family hoping beyond hope, a few kooks (i.e. Alan Keyes), and religious groups that don't care for the limitations in the Constitution but rather how they may use the document to force their views on this nation of states as a whole. He should be removed from his leadership position on the basis of that alone"


The United States Constitution does in fact have the power and authority over a state when it is regards to life and death. Death sentence appeals are run up the court ladder every day all the way to the supremes.

So this must be an anti-religion issue for you rather than a Constitutional issue???? By the way I am not a Keyes, Terry, Jackson, etc... follower. But I do know my Bible.

I support Tom DeLay and he was not in violation of the Constitution or overstepping his Constitutional authority in acting in this case. Not one court wrote that opinion.

[Tribune7]

Shay is really not one of our own.

[billbears]

The United States Constitution does in fact have the power and authority over a state when it is regards to life and death. Death sentence appeals are run up the court ladder every day all the way to the supremes.

Death sentence appeals yes. However this was an issue over guardianship rights, nothing else.

So this must be an anti-religion issue for you rather than a Constitutional issue???? By the way I am not a Keyes, Terry, Jackson, etc... follower. But I do know my Bible.

As a Southern Baptist so do I. If Michael Schiavo has done something wrong, he will face a punishment. However at this time I am not willing to turn this power over to 436 political hacks that care less about the citizens of the respective states and more to pandering for votes

I support Tom DeLay and he was not in violation of the Constitution or overstepping his Constitutional authority in acting in this case. Not one court wrote that opinion.

Hmmmm, let's see....

A prevailing legal sentiment is that matters such as those in Theresa's case are best addressed by states, their legislatures and their courts – rather than by the federal judiciary.

Justice Scalia has admonished us to rely upon and accept the role of state lawmakers and laws to address issues of this very nature. Though his point of reference was Missouri law relative to an evidentiary standard, his message remains that it is up to states to establish the rules and guidelines in these matters.

I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide - including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life-and-death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable. (emphasis added) Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497, U.S. 261 (1990)

And while he might not agree with a particular state's method for addressing a matter – he not only defers to the states – but further admonishes us to avoid the politicization of legislation in these matters: I am concerned, from the tenor of today's opinions, that we are poised to confuse that [497 U.S. 261, 293] enterprise as successfully as we have confused the enterprise of legislating concerning abortion - requiring it to be conducted against a background of federal constitutional imperatives that are unknown because they are being newly crafted from Term to Term. That would be a great misfortune. Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497, U.S. 261 (1990)

In this context, it is vital to realize that Florida Statutes, Florida Rules of Evidence, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Florida case law were the basis for the past 13 years of litigation and conclusions of law in Theresa's case.

BTW, that was in the report to Gov Bush from Wolfson on this very issue. So it seems one of the most conservative men on the bench in the Supreme Court did write that opinion..I would reiterate

It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose