Political Junkets

[billvon 3,131]

>The statements made by the Dems and media was the statements
>that would bring harm to a judge IMO

Like what?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>The statements made by the Dems and media was the statements
>that would bring harm to a judge IMO

Like what?

Like what????

You claimed that DeLay's comments would bring harm to the judges.

I say that his statements would not be taken like that by most people.....................until the comments made by the Dems and the media attempted to change the context.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[chuckbrown 0]

Even if his comments weren't intended to mean physical harm (which I don't believe they were), those comments were completely beneath the dignity of a member of our representative government. DeLay threatened retaliation against other public officials who, in good faith, exercised their duties. Anybody who has any knowledge of the law knows that the courts couldn't intervene in the Schiavo case based on several hundred years of Anglo-American jurisprudential doctrine. Congressional intervention in that case was disgusting. You talk about activist judges? I find it interesting that those same politicians who are against activist judges also rail against federal intervention in state matters. They were pretty quick to abandon their principles when it served a supposedly politically expedient purpose.

DeLay was throwing a hissy fit and made a spectacle of himself because the courts didn't kowtow to his whim. He even apologized for it.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

see if he doesn't yank your ass out of that car.

ouch - that would hurt my ass.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

DeLay was throwing a hissy fit and made a spectacle of himself because the courts didn't kowtow to his whim.

Now that I do believe.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,131]

>I say that his statements would not be taken like that by most
> people.....................until the comments made by the Dems and
>the media attempted to change the context.

So if the media had ignored what he said, there would be no problem? Well, heck, if the media had ignored what Jane Fonda did, then there would have been no harm done either. But somehow I don't think you'd agree that she is blameless.

[rushmc 23]

OK, today Hasert (sp) agreed to go back to the old rules in the ethics committee. This is what the Dems have been asking for and today they got what they wanted ......but what happens next?

Pelosi changes the complaints to something about staffing?

She is next! She knows it! And if the committee convenes DeLay is cleared and the issue and media play is lost.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

see if he doesn't yank your ass out of that car.

ouch - that would hurt my ass.

Probably.. But it would make the 6pm news a little more entertaining.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Even if his comments weren't intended to mean physical harm (which I don't believe they were), those comments were completely beneath the dignity of a member of our representative government. DeLay threatened retaliation against other public officials who, in good faith, exercised their duties. Anybody who has any knowledge of the law knows that the courts couldn't intervene in the Schiavo case based on several hundred years of Anglo-American jurisprudential doctrine. Congressional intervention in that case was disgusting. You talk about activist judges? I find it interesting that those same politicians who are against activist judges also rail against federal intervention in state matters. They were pretty quick to abandon their principles when it served a supposedly politically expedient purpose.

DeLay was throwing a hissy fit and made a spectacle of himself because the courts didn't kowtow to his whim. He even apologized for it.

I don't agree.
The Schivo case got to where is was "because" of a judge(s).

And for DeLay, I think you confuse retribution and accountability.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I say that his statements would not be taken like that by most
> people.....................until the comments made by the Dems and
>the media attempted to change the context.

So if the media had ignored what he said, there would be no problem? Well, heck, if the media had ignored what Jane Fonda did, then there would have been no harm done either. But somehow I don't think you'd agree that she is blameless.

Where did I say ignore??? They made irresponsible and misleading reports. BIG difference.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

A close look at this whole issue is about one thing. Judges! Judges are legislating from the bench. Roe v Wade is the biggest (and I am not wanting to argue abortion here) This is a case where judges added a right to the constitution. The Mass. courts ordering the legislature to make a law regarding gay unions (again, I do not want to argue the merits of the law)

More rights for the people and fewer restrictions from the government - a conservative's nightmare.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

The Schivo case got to where is was "because" of a judge(s).

Please explain.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Quote

Even if his comments weren't intended to mean physical harm (which I don't believe they were), those comments were completely beneath the dignity of a member of our representative government. DeLay threatened retaliation against other public officials who, in good faith, exercised their duties. Anybody who has any knowledge of the law knows that the courts couldn't intervene in the Schiavo case based on several hundred years of Anglo-American jurisprudential doctrine. Congressional intervention in that case was disgusting. You talk about activist judges? I find it interesting that those same politicians who are against activist judges also rail against federal intervention in state matters. They were pretty quick to abandon their principles when it served a supposedly politically expedient purpose.

DeLay was throwing a hissy fit and made a spectacle of himself because the courts didn't kowtow to his whim. He even apologized for it.

I don't agree.
The Schivo case got to where is was "because" of a judge(s).

And for DeLay, I think you confuse retribution and accountability.

In our legal system judges and juries (but not elected representatives) decide lawsuits. The Schiavo case was a lawsuit filed by her parents, so a judge had to decide the case. That's the way our legal system works, and has worked for 200+ years. You just don't like the judges' decisions. Well, guess what, there's always going to be a loser in a lawsuit. Have you even read any of the judges' opinions? If so, tell me where you believe their legal analysis was flawed. By the way, the law Congress passed left it up to the "judges" to decide the case. They decided it, but since it wasn't the "right" decision DeLay had to go around harrummphhing about activist judges.

Was DeLay demanding retribution or accountability? If the former, he's as low as I said. If the later, how are judges not accountable? State court judges certainly are accountable to the voters who elect them. As for Federal judges, they're accountable to Congress for malfeasance in office, not because somebody doesn't like their decisions.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Quote

A close look at this whole issue is about one thing. Judges! Judges are legislating from the bench. Roe v Wade is the biggest (and I am not wanting to argue abortion here) This is a case where judges added a right to the constitution. The Mass. courts ordering the legislature to make a law regarding gay unions (again, I do not want to argue the merits of the law)

More rights for the people and fewer restrictions from the government - a conservative's nightmare.

I gotta admit Kallend, that one made me laugh. Very good.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

More rights for the people and fewer restrictions from the government - a conservative's nightmare.

I gotta admit Kallend, that one made me laugh. Very good.

I don't see more rights for the people in those decisions. I see the federal government granting itself more powre to deicde what rights people have.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[rushmc 23]

You need to look at the original Finding of facts. The original judges findings were never allowed to be reviewed.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,131]

>I don't agree.
>The Schivo case got to where is was "because" of a judge(s).

No it didn't. The courts were unanimous in their findings that her husband has the right to speak for her. If not for her parents, the senate and Jeb Bush, this would have been over a long time ago. Those are the people responsible from turning it from one family's painful decision into a circus.

[rushmc 23]

You are right, they are not accountable interpreting law. They are when they create law.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

More rights for the people and fewer restrictions from the government - a conservative's nightmare.

I gotta admit Kallend, that one made me laugh. Very good.

I don't see more rights for the people in those decisions. I see the federal government granting itself more powre to deicde what rights people have.

Them make my point here! Since the lawmakers will not pass the laws they want, they get the courts to force their ideals on the majority

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

You need to look at the original Finding of facts. The original judges finds were never allowed to be reviewed.

I have read them. Along with all of the other opinions. The judge found credible medical testimony that Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state. There was no medical evidence indicating otherwise. And please don't cite Cheshire (or whatever his name is). He has no credibility in the psychiatric community and wouldn't qualify as a medical expert on persistent vegetative states.

The original judges fact findings were reviewed and the appellate court judges didn't overturn them because there was no evidence that the judge was wrong. That's the way our legal system works. A judge who sees and hears the witness at trial is deemed to be the best person to evaluate the witnesses credibililty. Appeals courts will only overturn a judge's factual findings if they were obviously wrong. They weren't obviously wrong because they were supported by competent medical evidence which wasn't contradicted.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Them make my point here! Since the lawmakers will not pass the laws they want, they get the courts to force their ideals on the majority

The courts didn't force their ideals on anyone. It's people like DeLay that got involved and tried to use the government to force their ideals one family in Florida.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

You are right, they are not accountable interpreting law. They are when they create law.

?

They're accountable for their official acts as judges, irrespective of whether someone thinks they're interpreting or creating law.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

More rights for the people and fewer restrictions from the government - a conservative's nightmare.

I gotta admit Kallend, that one made me laugh. Very good.

I don't see more rights for the people in those decisions. I see the federal government granting itself more powre to deicde what rights people have.

I took Kallend's point as more cynical and rather funny - Both parties proclaim "more rights and fewer restrictions" and both actively do just the opposite and accuse the other of it. At least they are both right in their accusations if not their actions.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,131]

>So, DeLay's comments are right on target. Everyone is responsible for their actions!

From TIME:
------------------
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes, according to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a cigar is an economic prop to a brutal totalitarian regime. Arguing against loosening sanctions against Cuba last year, DeLay warned that Fidel Castro "will take the money. Every dime that finds its way into Cuba first finds its way into Fidel Castro's blood-thirsty hands.... American consumers will get their fine cigars and their cheap sugar, but at the cost of our national honor."

DeLay has long been one of Congress' most vocal critics of what he calls Castro's "thugocracy," which is why some sharp-eyed TIME readers were surprised last week to see a photo of the Majority Leader smoking one of Cuba's best—a Hoyo de Monterrey double corona, which generally costs about $25 when purchased overseas and is not available in this country. The cigar's label clearly states that it was made in "Habana." The photo was taken in Jerusalem on July 28, 2003, during a meeting between DeLay and the Republican Jewish Coalition at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.
-------------------

So how will DeLay take responsibility for his actions here? Will he apologize to the american people for destroying their national honor?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Sorry, I missed the gun connection...

Look around, buckaroo, I post a lot of messages that have nothing to do with guns.

And if you came to a thread titled "Political Junkets" and were expecting to find something about guns, then I question your