Adam Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...go_co/delay_ads A desperate attempt at best
PastaJoe Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 Delay did a fine job of getting his own ethical problems off the front page. Can't someone offer him another junket and make him go away. His latest comments could be taken out of context by some nutcase who will take a shot at a judge. DeLay condemned the judges who at both the state and federal level declined to order that Schiavo be kept alive artificially. "This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change," the Texas Republican said. "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today. Today we grieve, we pray, and we hope to God this fate never befalls another." Speaking with reporters later in Houston, DeLay said lawmakers "will look at an arrogant and out of control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the President." Asked if that included the possibility of the House bringing impeachment charges against judges involved in the Schiavo case, DeLay said, "There's plenty of time to look into that." "I never thought I'd see the day when a U.S. judge stopped feeding a living American so that they took 14 days to die," he added.
slothrop Posted April 1, 2005 Posted April 1, 2005 thank god we have a judiciary that is willing to stand up to, or as delay put it "thumb its nose at" the congress and the president. Maybe delay should take a gander at the COnstitution. Its called checks and balances. The judiciary is supposed to stop the COngress and executive from abusing power when they want to exercise their power at a whim and caprice.
Whiskey Dick Posted April 1, 2005 Posted April 1, 2005 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...go_co/delay_adsA desperate attempt at best 292136[/snapback] ...and you approve of DeLay and his violations of the constitution? Get a clue.
Whiskey Dick Posted April 1, 2005 Posted April 1, 2005 PLEASE! KEEP HIM IN! It makes the Republican leadership look more whacked out and controlled by the evangelical fringe if he's around.
Whiskey Dick Posted April 1, 2005 Posted April 1, 2005 More DeLay nonsense: WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.
Adam Posted April 1, 2005 Author Posted April 1, 2005 More DeLay nonsense: WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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. 293007[/snapback] Actually, impeachment proceedings are the least of the judges worries. If brought up on counts of treason, they will be more than impeached, because they are guilty.
Whiskey Dick Posted April 1, 2005 Posted April 1, 2005 Actually, impeachment proceedings are the least of the judges worries. If brought up on counts of treason, they will be more than impeached, because they are guilty. 293147[/snapback] How dare those judges act the way they do the treasonous bastards!
Adam Posted April 1, 2005 Author Posted April 1, 2005 How dare those judges act the way they do the treasonous bastards! 293179[/snapback] They used congressional power they dont have- therefore, treason. Lets not turn this into an arguement over who things they did right or wrong. They acted in a way in which they aren't constitutionally authorized to. Debating their decisions could go on forever, and is pointless.
Whiskey Dick Posted April 1, 2005 Posted April 1, 2005 They used congressional power they dont have- therefore, treason. Lets not turn this into an arguement over who things they did right or wrong. They acted in a way in which they aren't constitutionally authorized to. Debating their decisions could go on forever, and is pointless. 293183[/snapback] To quote the mayor in Jaws I say we "string them up by their Buster Browns". All in favor say AYE!
KRC Posted April 1, 2005 Posted April 1, 2005 They used congressional power they dont have- therefore, treason. Lets not turn this into an arguement over who things they did right or wrong. They acted in a way in which they aren't constitutionally authorized to. Debating their decisions could go on forever, and is pointless. 293183[/snapback] How did they use Congresional power? Please be specific.
Campy Posted April 1, 2005 Posted April 1, 2005 They used congressional power they dont have- therefore, treason. Lets not turn this into an arguement over who things they did right or wrong. They acted in a way in which they aren't constitutionally authorized to. Debating their decisions could go on forever, and is pointless. 293183[/snapback] Wrong on so many counts my friend. According to the Constitution: Article III - : section 1 - The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. <- This is the part that created the Supreme Court section 2, clause 1 - The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made <- This is the part that means they are the ultimate judges. Like all judges, what they rule on sets legal precedent, but because of section 1, there's no going higher than them. No court, no judge, no congress is above the Supreme Court, nor do they have "congressional power," whatever that means. section3, clause 1 - Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. <- Do you really think they're guilty of treason after reading this country's definition of treason?
Johnny Coli Posted April 1, 2005 Posted April 1, 2005 PLEASE! KEEP HIM IN! It makes the Republican leadership look more whacked out and controlled by the evangelical fringe if he's around. 293005[/snapback] Absolutely keep him somewhere where we can see him, and everything he does is public record. The best place for that scumbag is in the spotlight. He should be miked at all times, and every hatefull, bigoted statement that blurts out of his mouth should be recorded and played for the masses.
Johnny Coli Posted April 1, 2005 Posted April 1, 2005 Actually, impeachment proceedings are the least of the judges worries. If brought up on counts of treason, they will be more than impeached, because they are guilty. 293147[/snapback] Weren't most of these judges Reagan, Bush I appointees? Aren't they all card-carrying Republican, Christian Right conservatives? You right-wingers love to throw "treason" around, don't you. Maybe you ought to see who the turd hits before you toss it. Those people are your own.
Adam Posted April 1, 2005 Author Posted April 1, 2005 Wrong on so many counts my friend. According to the Constitution: Article III - : section 1 - The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. <- This is the part that created the Supreme Court section 2, clause 1 - The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made <- This is the part that means they are the ultimate judges. Like all judges, what they rule on sets legal precedent, but because of section 1, there's no going higher than them. No court, no judge, no congress is above the Supreme Court, nor do they have "congressional power," whatever that means. section3, clause 1 - Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. <- Do you really think they're guilty of treason after reading this country's definition of treason? 293755[/snapback] OK, so I listened to somebody who didn't know what they were talking about.....I can admit that
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 2, 2005 Posted April 2, 2005 OK, so I listened to somebody who didn't know what they were talking about.....I can admit that 293800[/snapback] I still want to hear the explanation nonetheless. That was some wacky, wacky stuff you were slinging.
Campy Posted April 2, 2005 Posted April 2, 2005 OK, so I listened to somebody who didn't know what they were talking about.....I can admit that 293800[/snapback] I've been wrong before too. But only once.
erynthered Posted April 2, 2005 Posted April 2, 2005 I've been wrong before too. But only once. 293894[/snapback] I've heard you sing soprano pretty good, would that be wrong? Could be
Buffalo 65 Posted April 2, 2005 Posted April 2, 2005 Do DeLay's recent radical comments concerning the impeachment of certain judges constitute a Federal crime? In light of the recent gunning down of an Illinois judge's folks, and a state judge in Georgia, NJ Sen Laughtenburg seems to think so. "Our nation’s judges must be concerned for their safety and security when they are asked to make difficult decisions every day. That’s why comments like those you made are not only irresponsible, but downright dangerous. To make matters worse, is it appropriate to make threats directed at specific federal and state judges? You should be aware that your comments yesterday may violate a federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 115 (a)(1)(B). That law states: "'Whoever threatens to assault…. or murder, a United States judge… with intent to retaliate against such… judge…. on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished [by up to six years in prison].'
Adam Posted April 3, 2005 Author Posted April 3, 2005 I still want to hear the explanation nonetheless. That was some wacky, wacky stuff you were slinging. 293893[/snapback] OK, I'll repeat the explanation that you just responded to. I listened to what somebody said the other day. It was bad information. In other words, dont believe what you hear. No matter who says it, or even if you see it happen yourself- that does not mean it actually did happen even if it did and was witnessed by others and seen through a telescope from the moon. happy now?
Recommended Posts