This just in:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-041305delay_lat,0,886778.story?coll=la-home-headlines

This just in:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-041305delay_lat,0,886778.story?coll=la-home-headlines

This just in: DeLay is still an a--hole.

DeLay calls for Terry Schiavo hearings. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050413/pl_nm/congress_delay_dc)

...but he didnt' say anything wrong...wow.

(shrug).

...but he didnt' say anything wrong...wow.

(shrug). "Sometimes I get a little more passionate, and particularly during the moment, and the day that Terri Schiavo was starved to death, emotions were flowing," DeLay said. "I probably said — I did, I didn't probably — I said something in an inartful way, and I shouldn't have said it that way, and I apologize for saying it that way."

-- T. DeLay

He's obviously been brought to heel - someone in a position of authority in the party has explained the situation to him.

Might an "apology" from John Cornyn be next?

He's obviously been brought to heel - someone in a position of authority in the party has explained the situation to him.

Perhaps King Karl Rove planted a little device in DeLay's ear, too. :p

Of course, he's not really apologizing for what he said, is he? He's apologizing for the way he said it.

Jebus. Deliver us from Republican sophists.

Where's our apology from every Democrat for just warming seats?

Of course, he's not really apologizing for what he said, is he? He's apologizing for the way he said it.
Claudius, you are right. Not only do I apologize for my misunderstanding, I apologize for my artful manner of apologizing.

Where's our apology from every Democrat for just warming seats?

HA! That's a good one. Inside I'm crying though. The only thing dumber than the Republicants in power are the Dem's who keep losing to them. Hello? I'm still waiting for a counter proposal to Bush's ridiculous Social Security "plan?"

The Onion's current "man in the street" poll is on Tom DeLay. My favorite (from Coleen Bowers, Systems Analyist): "I heard Tom DeLay's blood was in the water and the sharks were circling him, but unfortunately, it turned out to be a metaphor."

http://www.theonion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue=4115

12/02: White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that Lott has the president's confidence.

04/05: White House spokesman Scott McClellan said DeLay has the president's confidence.

Inside I'm crying though. The only thing dumber than the Republicants in power are the Dem's who keep losing to them.

"And the Truth Shall Set You Free" ;)

...but he didnt' say anything wrong...wow.

(shrug).Let's see....

In the wake of a federal judge's family having been murdered by a disgruntled litigant, Tom DeLay, the majority leader of the House of Representatives of the United States of America, disgruntled over the federal judiciary's refusal to accede to the unconstitutional usurpation of power by the legislative and executive branches of government, threatened the federal judiciary, in highly intemperate language.

And you see nothing wrong with that?

I think the ship is still sinking....bring back newt!

"Sometimes I get a little more passionate, and particularly during the moment, and the day that Terri Schiavo was starved to death, emotions were flowing," DeLay said. "I probably said — I did, I didn't probably — I said something in an inartful way, and I shouldn't have said it that way, and I apologize for saying it that way."

-- T. DeLay

The same article states:

-------------------

On March 31, the day that Schiavo died, DeLay denounced federal judges who failed to halt her death as "arrogant, out-of-control, [and] unaccountable."

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today," Delay said. "Today we grieve, we pray, and we hope to God this fate never befalls another."

DeLay continued to criticize federal judges last week, telling a conference of conservative activists that recent court decisions "are not examples of a mature society, but of a judiciary run amok."

"The response of the legislative branch has mostly been to complain," DeLay continued. "There is another way, ladies and gentlemen, and that is to reassert our constitutional authority over the courts."

--------

Sounds pretty good to me. Nothing wrong with this.

Let's see....

In the wake of a federal judge's family having been murdered by a disgruntled litigant, Tom DeLay, the majority leader of the House of Representatives of the United States of America, disgruntled over the federal judiciary's refusal to accede to the unconstitutional usurpation of power by the legislative and executive branches of government, threatened the federal judiciary, in highly intemperate language.

And you see nothing wrong with that?


You are putting the controversy about DeLay in the same sentence about the judge's family being murdered? This guy was was upset about a malpractice suit:

--------
One of the tragic ironies of this case is that Ross in the mid-90's looking for an attorney to represent him in his medical malpractice case, went to the offices of Michael Lefkow and his office partner Bill Spielberger. Spielberger declined the case.

"He sent a package of documents that I didn't want to receive. I told him I couldn't represent him," said Bill Spielberger

One of the attorneys who represented Ross in his malpractice action says that he was consumed by the issue, spent tens of thousands of dollars -- hiring medical experts to make a case that his doctors botched his cancer treatment and left him permanently disfigured. Ross then turned his anger to lawyers who had represented him and judges who ruled against him.
----------

How in the world is DeLay and this murder even remotely related?

The same article states:

-------------------

...

"The response of the legislative branch has mostly been to complain," DeLay continued. "There is another way, ladies and gentlemen, and that is to reassert our constitutional authority over the courts."

--------

Sounds pretty good to me. Nothing wrong with this.What's "wrong with this" is that DeLay's concept of "our constitutional authority over the courts" is an unconstitutional gutting of the separation of powers that directs the Federal courts as to the evidence that can (or must) be considered in their decisions.

As Judge Birch, a conservative Republican appointee to the Federal Court of Appeals put it in the Schiavo case, the case that prompted DeLay's remarks,"It is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people - our Constitution."

Because the special legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Bush "constitutes legislative dictation of how a federal court should exercise its judicial functions (known as a 'rule of decision') the Act invades the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle." To hold otherwise, Judge Birch concluded, would be to act in a manner consistent with the label "activist judge."

DeLay has no "philosophy" with regard to judicial "activism." He simply wants to bully the Courts into rulings that favor his political agenda whether such rulings can be justified in terms of constitutional theory, or not.

You are putting the controversy about DeLay in the same sentence about the judge's family being murdered? This guy was was upset about a malpractice suit:

--------
One of the tragic ironies of this case is that Ross in the mid-90's looking for an attorney to represent him in his medical malpractice case, went to the offices of Michael Lefkow and his office partner Bill Spielberger. Spielberger declined the case.

"He sent a package of documents that I didn't want to receive. I told him I couldn't represent him," said Bill Spielberger

One of the attorneys who represented Ross in his malpractice action says that he was consumed by the issue, spent tens of thousands of dollars -- hiring medical experts to make a case that his doctors botched his cancer treatment and left him permanently disfigured. Ross then turned his anger to lawyers who had represented him and judges who ruled against him.
----------

How in the world is DeLay and this murder even remotely related?You bet I am. DeLay was annoyed that the judges didn't bend over for his unconstitutional grab at power, and lashed out at them, threatenening them in no uncertain terms, as your quote shows. A responsible leader (which DeLay clearly isn't) would not make intemperate remarks, trying to bully the courts with an outrageous statement like "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today." Out of any other litigant, that would be considered a threat the FBI might investigate, and you're wondering what's wrong with the majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, after being disappointed that his grab at judicial power failed, making this threat? You and dmp would be the first to be up in arms if your favorite strawman Ted Kennedy said such a thing.

The irony of dmp starting a thread lambasting the entire "left" for one whacko printing up a T-shirt on the hoped-for suicide of DeLay, and then dmp saying that DeLay did nothing out of the ordinary for a politician, and now you wondering what's wrong with an elected official, especially one so powerful, crudely threatening judges, is rich, and frightening.

You and dmp certainly are entitled to grieve for Schiavo, but this still, depite the best efforts of Bush, DeLay, Frist, Ashcroft and their henchmen, is a country of laws, headed by the federal constitution. Anyone who cares about the constitution (which clearly does not include the aforementioned persons) would know that the bill they pushed through Congress was unconstitutional, and would not have done it, out of respect for our system. They not only have no respect for our system, they have no respect for judges who uphold our system, refusing to knuckle under to bullying, and they are quite happy to attempt a crude intimidation of the entire judiciary.

Anyone who sees nothing wrong with that should do a bit of thinking.

Bullying tactics aside, at a time when violent assaults on the judiciary are still fresh in the memory of anyone who pays even scant attention to the news, to say that "the men responsible for this" will "answer for their behavior" (how, Tom?) seems at the least, tactless; at the worst, irresponsible. And despite his protestations that his statement was "inartful," it was far more articulate - and obviously scripted - than his half-assed "apology."

And hot on the heels of DeLay's vague threats against the judicial branch came Cornyn's implicit but clear expression of sympathy for folks who, threatened by those activist judges, have taken the law into their own hands.

You bet I am. DeLay was annoyed that the judges didn't bend over for his unconstitutional grab at power, and lashed out at them, threatenening them in no uncertain terms, as your quote shows. A responsible leader (which DeLay clearly isn't) would not make intemperate remarks, trying to bully the courts with an outrageous statement like "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today." Out of any other litigant, that would be considered a threat the FBI might investigate, and you're wondering what's wrong with the majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, after being disappointed that his grab at judicial power failed, making this threat? You and dmp would be the first to be up in arms if your favorite strawman Ted Kennedy said such a thing.

The irony of dmp starting a thread lambasting the entire "left" for one whacko printing up a T-shirt on the hoped-for suicide of DeLay, and then dmp saying that DeLay did nothing out of the ordinary for a politician, and now you wondering what's wrong with an elected official, especially one so powerful, crudely threatening judges, is rich, and frightening.

You and dmp certainly are entitled to grieve for Schiavo, but this still, depite the best efforts of Bush, DeLay, Frist, Ashcroft and their henchmen, is a country of laws, headed by the federal constitution. Anyone who cares about the constitution (which clearly does not include the aforementioned persons) would know that the bill they pushed through Congress was unconstitutional, and would not have done it, out of respect for our system. They not only have no respect for our system, they have no respect for judges who uphold our system, refusing to knuckle under to bullying, and they are quite happy to attempt a crude intimidation of the entire judiciary.

Anyone who sees nothing wrong with that should do a bit of thinking.


Amen brother..well said.

...so the Kill Bush T-Shirts are 'no big deal...freedom of expression'...yet this VERY vague, only threatening if read through liberal goggles, statement is 'bad'?

weird.

...so the Kill Bush T-Shirts are 'no big deal...freedom of expression'...yet this VERY vague, only threatening if read through liberal goggles, statement is 'bad'?

weird.
kill bush shirts arent being sold by the democratic party or high powered democrats as tasteless as they are....but statements by a majority leader that undermine the concept of america are bad. if these shirts were some sort of liberal conspiracy orchestrated by the DNC then fine your comparison does raise a question. DeLay is no saint.

...so the Kill Bush T-Shirts are 'no big deal...freedom of expression'...yet this VERY vague, only threatening if read through liberal goggles, statement is 'bad'?

weird.Gee, Darin, let's see....

A single whacko does up some T-shirts in bad taste regarding the author's hoping for DeLay to put himself out of his misery (and I'm not aware of any Kill Bush T-shirts, which certainly would be much more than mere bad taste). The T-shirts actually don't threaten anyone, just show bad taste. You, of course, see this as a liberal plot to do harm to that wonderful American, Tom DeLay, and protest loudly.

Now, on the other hand, the aforementioned great American, Tom DeLay, using his bully pulpit as majority leader of the House of Representatives of the United States of America, says, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today," and you think that that's a threat only if read through "liberal goggles," and only a "vague" threat at that?

God help us.

kill bush shirts arent being sold by the democratic party or high powered democrats as tasteless as they are....but statements by a majority leader that undermine the concept of america are bad. if these shirts were some sort of liberal conspiracy orchestrated by the DNC then fine your comparison does raise a question. DeLay is no saint.


Yes, exactly right. For a puffin, you got it going on!

You bet I am. DeLay was annoyed that the judges didn't bend over for his unconstitutional grab at power, and lashed out at them, threatenening them in no uncertain terms, as your quote shows. A responsible leader (which DeLay clearly isn't) would not make intemperate remarks, trying to bully the courts with an outrageous statement like "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today." Out of any other litigant, that would be considered a threat the FBI might investigate, and you're wondering what's wrong with the majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, after being disappointed that his grab at judicial power failed, making this threat? You and dmp would be the first to be up in arms if your favorite strawman Ted Kennedy said such a thing.

The irony of dmp starting a thread lambasting the entire "left" for one whacko printing up a T-shirt on the hoped-for suicide of DeLay, and then dmp saying that DeLay did nothing out of the ordinary for a politician, and now you wondering what's wrong with an elected official, especially one so powerful, crudely threatening judges, is rich, and frightening.

You and dmp certainly are entitled to grieve for Schiavo, but this still, depite the best efforts of Bush, DeLay, Frist, Ashcroft and their henchmen, is a country of laws, headed by the federal constitution. Anyone who cares about the constitution (which clearly does not include the aforementioned persons) would know that the bill they pushed through Congress was unconstitutional, and would not have done it, out of respect for our system. They not only have no respect for our system, they have no respect for judges who uphold our system, refusing to knuckle under to bullying, and they are quite happy to attempt a crude intimidation of the entire judiciary.

Anyone who sees nothing wrong with that should do a bit of thinking.

" A responsible leader (which DeLay clearly isn't) would not make intemperate remarks, trying to bully the courts with an outrageous statement like "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today." Out of any other litigant, that would be considered a threat the FBI might investigate, and you're wondering what's wrong with the majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, after being disappointed that his grab at judicial power failed, making this threat? You and dmp would be the first to be up in arms if your favorite strawman Ted Kennedy said such a thing. "

Actually I wouldn't - I can't speak 100% for dmp but I think he might feel the same. This "threat" was obviously referring to something non-violent; maybe something else like....re-election? Or Democratic sponsored bills?

Wow..imagine that.....people from different sides arguing and threatening political support for votes or legislation.

I wouldn't have a problem with Kennedy saying the same thing - he probably has made the same references to people who don't agree with him and/or his party having trouble being re-elected. I actually don't know though. Why?

Because it's no biggie - it's politics.

As far as Schiavo is concerned; I don't think anyone should be been involved - on either side. This, and Ms. Schiavo, should have been put to rest years ago. It was and still is a family matter. I have no doubt in my mind that she had "the conversation" with her husband and her husband was trying to carry out her wishes. Was he a jerk when it came to his life outside of being Mr. Schiavo? Absolutely. But does that negate what he felt obligated to do, because of her wishes? Absolutely not.

" A responsible leader (which DeLay clearly isn't) would not make intemperate remarks, trying to bully the courts with an outrageous statement like "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today." Out of any other litigant, that would be considered a threat the FBI might investigate, and you're wondering what's wrong with the majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, after being disappointed that his grab at judicial power failed, making this threat? You and dmp would be the first to be up in arms if your favorite strawman Ted Kennedy said such a thing. "

Actually I wouldn't - I can't speak 100% for dmp but I think he might feel the same.Nonsense; Ted Kennedy is bashed here regularly, even though he hasn't said a word in 20 years. Imagine if he said something like that. :rolleyes:

This "threat" was obviously referring to something non-violentNonsense; nothing obvious about that, since there's nothing non-violent which can be done legitimately to a federal judge.

; maybe something else like....re-election?LOL!! Federal judges are appointed for life; it's in that annoying constitution. No, federal judges are beyond any simple threat; since the thug DeLay can't do anything against federal judges by legitimate means, just what did he mean?

Or Democratic sponsored bills?Let's see.... The thug DeLay threatens federal judges, and that somehow is a promise to do something to Democratic-sponsored bills? Uh huh....

Wow..imagine that.....people from different sides arguing and threatening political support for votes or legislation.Wow..imagine that.....a right-winger who doesn't know that federal judges are appointed for life.

I wouldn't have a problem with Kennedy saying the same thing - he probably has made the same references to people who don't agree with him and/or his party having trouble being re-elected.I think you would have a great deal of difficulty coming up with crude threats like this made by Ted Kennedy, or any other politician other than that thug DeLay.

I actually don't know though. Why?

Because it's no biggie - it's politics.No, it's un-American intimidation, striking at the very heart of our system. Only someone who does not understand our system, or does not like it, would see this as "no biggie - it's politics."

As far as Schiavo is concerned; I don't think anyone should be been involved - on either side. This, and Ms. Schiavo, should have been put to rest years ago. It was and still is a family matter. I have no doubt in my mind that she had "the conversation" with her husband and her husband was trying to carry out her wishes. Was he a jerk when it came to his life outside of being Mr. Schiavo? Absolutely. But does that negate what he felt obligated to do, because of her wishes? Absolutely not.On this, at least, we can agree.

Nonsense; Ted Kennedy is bashed here regularly, even though he hasn't said a word in 20 years. Imagine if he said something like that. :rolleyes:

Nonsense; nothing obvious about that, since there's nothing non-violent which can be done legitimately to a federal judge.

LOL!! Federal judges are appointed for life; it's in that annoying constitution. No, federal judges are beyond any simple threat; since the thug DeLay can't do anything against federal judges by legitimate means, just what did he mean?

Let's see.... The thug DeLay threatens federal judges, and that somehow is a promise to do something to Democratic-sponsored bills? Uh huh....

Wow..imagine that.....a right-winger who doesn't know that federal judges are appointed for life.

I think you would have a great deal of difficulty coming up with crude threats like this made by Ted Kennedy, or any other politician other than that thug DeLay.

No, it's un-American intimidation, striking at the very heart of our system. Only someone who does not understand our system, or does not like it, would see this as "no biggie - it's politics."

On this, at least, we can agree.

Ummmm....I know that judges are appointed for life.

You don't actually believe that the individual political beliefs of each of our federal judge's don't affect their decisions do you?

I am sure DeLay was not advocating harm or death to judges. I believe he was speaking of hurting their political affiliation.

You would be surprised how many judges turn out to be the opposite of what was thought. Suter comes to mind as an example.

Ummmm....I know that judges are appointed for life.Then what did you mean by
This "threat" was obviously referring to something non-violent; maybe something else like....re-election? :confused: Since the people threatened were the judges, it's not clear.

You don't actually believe that the individual political beliefs of each of our federal judge's don't affect their decisions do you?What's that got to do with the issue at hand? DeLay threatens federal judges, and this is your response? :confused:

I am sure DeLay was not advocating harm or death to judges. I believe he was speaking of hurting their political affiliation.They are appointed for life, without formal political affiliation; the thug DeLay threatens them, and you somehow think that "he was speaking of hurting their political affiliation???" What are you talking about?

DeLay's a thug, pure and simple. His was a flagrant attempt to intimidate the judiciary. He is beneath contempt, but he is a very dangerous man.

And you're defending him.

You would be surprised how many judges turn out to be the opposite of what was thought. Suter comes to mind as an example.

I'll agree with that quicker than I will agree with 124spider.

And, 124spider, against I will say. I interpret his "threats" and aimed to the political party as a whole, not to a judge as an individual.

Surely, if I know the judges are appointed for life, I would hope he would too.

When I referred to "re-election", again I was referring to political party.

I asked if you felt that judges don't vote along party affiliation. You said that judges are appointed without political affiliation.

I don't believe that for a minute. There has been too many times that nominated judges have been turned down, or end up resigning because "one side" or another delays the process.

When you can show me a T-Shirt that makes reference to a federal judge losing his life, then I will consider DeLay's "threat" as to be aimed at something more.

Let me ask you. What do you think he meant by his threat?

Was he calling them out in the back for a fight?

You think he is planning harm?

I'll agree with that quicker than I will agree with 124spider.

And, 124spider, against I will say. I interpret his "threats" and aimed to the political party as a whole, not to a judge as an individual.It must be annoying to have to deal with reality from time to time, but that thug DeLay said, ""The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today." Who are the "men responsible" if not the judges, especially in the context of his larger remarks in reaction to his unconstitutional grab at power being frustrated?

When I referred to "re-election", again I was referring to political party. And, again, I say that he was clearly threatening the federal judges; what's "re-election" got to do with federal judges?

I asked if you felt that judges don't vote along party affiliation. You said that judges are appointed without political affiliation.

I don't believe that for a minute. There has been too many times that nominated judges have been turned down, or end up resigning because "one side" or another delays the process. Certainly, all judges (yes, including right-wing luminaries like Scalia) are influenced by their political leanings, but they don't "vote along party affiliation!" They apply the law to the facts, and make their decisions. In this case, the facts apparently were pretty clear, since court after court supported the husband's claims, and the law was completely clear. So what's "party lines" got to do with that thug's attempt at judicial intimiation?

When you can show me a T-Shirt that makes reference to a federal judge losing his life, then I will consider DeLay's "threat" as to be aimed at something more.Ah, so now a private whacko hawking stupid T-shirts is worse than the majority leader of the House of Representative of the United States of America threatening federal judges? Uh huh....

Let me ask you. What do you think he meant by his threat?

Was he calling them out in the back for a fight?

You think he is planning harm?

I repeat....what do you think he meant?

Death? Injury?

I'm not a huge DeLay fan...trust me on this. He is a typical politician who shoots off his mouth - flashes his feathers to bring attention to himself.

Showing off...he's a poser.

Let me ask you. What do you think he meant by his threat?

Was he calling them out in the back for a fight?

You think he is planning harm?I think that it was a crude attmpt to intimidate the judiciary, as I've said many times in this thread. If they don't knuckle under, he was saying, he will take unspecified action to get back at them. I don't begin to pretend to understand what a twisted mind like DeLay's would be thinking, but I would be very uneasy with such a speech out of a powerful political figure, especially in view of the recent murder of a federal judge's family, if I were a federal judge. At best, he was threatening to try to remove jurisdiction from federal judges, as the right wing threatens from time to time; at worst, he was sending the message, intentiaonally or by gross negligence, to the right-wing fanatics to whom he had been pandering for some weeks that "self help" would be appropriate in this case.

What I find so amazing is the total refusal on the part of so many of our right-wing brethren to ever acknowledge that one of their number did a really stupid, inappropriate thing. Any reasonable person would acknowledge that what DeLay did was way out of bounds, and yet you and dmp have strongly defended this outrageous act. What's up with that?

I think that it was a crude attmpt to intimidate the judiciary, as I've said many times in this thread. If they don't knuckle under, he was saying, he will take unspecified action to get back at them. I don't begin to pretend to understand what a twisted mind like DeLay's would be thinking, but I would be very uneasy with such a speech out of a powerful political figure, especially in view of the recent murder of a federal judge's family, if I were a federal judge. At best, he was threatening to try to remove jurisdiction from federal judges, as the right wing threatens from time to time; at worst, he was sending the message, intentiaonally or by gross negligence, to the right-wing fanatics to whom he had been pandering for some weeks that "self help" would be appropriate in this case.

What I find so amazing is the total refusal on the part of so many of our right-wing brethren to ever acknowledge that one of their number did a really stupid, inappropriate thing. Any reasonable person would acknowledge that what DeLay did was way out of bounds, and yet you and dmp have strongly defended this outrageous act. What's up with that?

As I said previously, I am not a huge fan of the man.

There is a difference between defending the man and the "outrageous act" - and dicussing with you that his "outrageous act" wasn't advocating violence, either by his hand or by someone with the mind-set of "self help."

As you stated, you are amazed by a so called total refusal to acknowledge that he did a stupid, inappropriate thing.

Had your post been something like, "........DeLay is out there. His statement was incredibly stupid and inappropriate."

I would have agreed.

Instead, you said:

"In the wake of a federal judge's family having been murdered by a disgruntled litigant, Tom DeLay, the majority leader of the House of Representatives of the United States of America, disgruntled over the federal judiciary's refusal to accede to the unconstitutional usurpation of power by the legislative and executive branches of government, threatened the federal judiciary, in highly intemperate language."

In one sentence you mentioned a federal judge's family being murdered by a disgruntled litigant, Tom DeLay being disgrunted over the federal judiciary, and his threats.

That is no where near you saying, "I think he said something stupid and inappropriate."

The Constitution can be amended to change the length of service of federal judges. Maybe that's what he meant. I doubt he was threatening the judges with harm, and that consideration is not why I'm disappointed in him.

The simple idea that he fully expected the judges to follow the lead of the legislature and not act independently, and in doing so seemingly ignored the constitutional role of both branches of government bothered me more.

Also the fact that he is my congressman, and he should be getting personally involved in issues that are important to me and that affect my regional interest, not some state's issue in Florida.

Where are all the "Kill Bush" teeshirts? Did your bud Ted Kennedy endorse them in a news conference or something? Who's selling these items? Are the Dems in Congress hawking them out of their offices? Have you actually seen anyone wearing a "Kill Bush" teeshirt?

...so the Kill Bush T-Shirts are 'no big deal...freedom of expression'...yet this VERY vague, only threatening if read through liberal goggles, statement is 'bad'?

weird.

Also the fact that he is my congressman, and he should be getting personally involved in issues that are important to me and that affect my regional interest, not some state's issue in Florida.

Now there is something I agree with 100% - for EVERY one in politics.

As I said previously, I am not a huge fan of the man.

There is a difference between defending the man and the "outrageous act" - and dicussing with you that his "outrageous act" wasn't advocating violence, either by his hand or by someone with the mind-set of "self help."

As you stated, you are amazed by a so called total refusal to acknowledge that he did a stupid, inappropriate thing.

Had your post been something like, "........DeLay is out there. His statement was incredibly stupid and inappropriate."

I would have agreed.

Instead, you said:

"In the wake of a federal judge's family having been murdered by a disgruntled litigant, Tom DeLay, the majority leader of the House of Representatives of the United States of America, disgruntled over the federal judiciary's refusal to accede to the unconstitutional usurpation of power by the legislative and executive branches of government, threatened the federal judiciary, in highly intemperate language."

In one sentence you mentioned a federal judge's family being murdered by a disgruntled litigant, Tom DeLay being disgrunted over the federal judiciary, and his threats.

That is no where near you saying, "I think he said something stupid and inappropriate."But the recent murder of a federal judge's family is very, very relevant. Whether that thug DeLay was aware of it or not, those murders sent a huge chill throughout the judiciary. Personally, I'm inclined to think that DeLay was entirely aware that his comments, which were carefully crafted, would add to that chill, and hence be an effective form of intimidation. However, it's possible that he's merely stupid, and uttered those highly irresponsible words without considering the context of the recent murders of a federal judge's family. Frankly, I'm not sure which is worse--DeLay purposely invoking a double murder, or DeLay being so stupid that he didn't know that he was invoking a double murder. In either case, no person of good will or conscience should see him as fit for public office.

Where are all the "Kill Bush" teeshirts? Did your bud Ted Kennedy endorse them in a news conference or something? Who's selling these items? Are the Dems in Congress hawking them out of their offices? Have you actually seen anyone wearing a "Kill Bush" teeshirt?

They were on cafepress.com

At least they had the deceny to know they were inappropriate and they removed them.

I addressed this in another post in this thread, but I'll rephrase my original point for you. I don't expect that DeLay will go gunning for judges personally, nor do I think that he's going to take out a contract on anyone. But in the current climate, when a couple of individuals have already decided that the way to protest judicial decisions they don't like is to kill judges or their families, vague, open-ended threats from influential public officials might reasonably be seen as encouragement by any number of pissed-off, gun-toting idiots.

Of course he's a poser - he's a sad little banty-rooster of a man who likes to preen and strut and wave his weenie around. But some people out there aren't posers. Some of them are bullgoose loonies, and even to appear to encourage violence against another branch of the government because they refuse to rubber-stamp his political agenda is irresponsible. (And arrogant. And out-of-control. And all those other things he said about the judiciary.)

I repeat....what do you think he meant?

Death? Injury?

I'm not a huge DeLay fan...trust me on this. He is a typical politician who shoots off his mouth - flashes his feathers to bring attention to himself.

Showing off...he's a poser.

They were on cafepress.com
It's not nearly the same thing then, is it?

I addressed this in another post in this thread, but I'll rephrase my original point for you. I don't expect that DeLay will go gunning for judges personally, nor do I think that he's going to take out a contract on anyone. But in the current climate, when a couple of individuals have already decided that the way to protest judicial decisions they don't like is to kill judges or their families, vague, open-ended threats from influential public officials might reasonably be seen as encouragement by any number of pissed-off, gun-toting idiots.

Of course he's a poser - he's a sad little banty-rooster of a man who likes to preen and strut and wave his weenie around. But some people out there aren't posers. Some of them are bullgoose loonies, and even to appear to encourage violence against another branch of the government because they refuse to rubber-stamp his political agenda is irresponsible. (And arrogant. And out-of-control. And all those other things he said about the judiciary.)

I will agree completely.

But add to it one thing. Since the "DeLay suicide" shirt was on cafepress.com (and still it) - I think that "in the current climate, when a couple of individuals have already decided that the way to protest judicial decisions they don't like is to kill judges or their families, vague, open-ended threats" from anyone is inappropriate.

I will agree completely.

But add to it one thing. Since the "DeLay suicide" shirt was on cafepress.com (and still it) - I think that "in the current climate, when a couple of individuals have already decided that the way to protest judicial decisions they don't like is to kill judges or their families, vague, open-ended threats" from anyone is inappropriate.Certainly those T-shirts were in appropriate, and in very poor taste. But there's a huge difference between a whacko private individual doing something inappropriate, and the majority leader of the House of Representatives of the United States of America doing what he did (which he knew or should have known might give some extremist the justification for another murder of a judge or a judge's family, and certainly would have an intimidating effect).

But the recent murder of a federal judge's family is very, very relevant. Whether that thug DeLay was aware of it or not, those murders sent a huge chill throughout the judiciary. Personally, I'm inclined to think that DeLay was entirely aware that his comments, which were carefully crafted, would add to that chill, and hence be an effective form of intimidation. However, it's possible that he's merely stupid, and uttered those highly irresponsible words without considering the context of the recent murders of a federal judge's family. Frankly, I'm not sure which is worse--DeLay purposely invoking a double murder, or DeLay being so stupid that he didn't know that he was invoking a double murder. In either case, no person of good will or conscience should see him as fit for public office.

I am going to go with the merely stupid theory. He was stupid and irresponsible to say what he did. But I don't believe he used the murder of the judge's family as a medium to fan his feathers.

The sad thing with him is I truly don't think it occured to him. Once again, he shot off his mouth without thinking.

Stupid and inappropriate. Yes, I agree.

Premediated to be scary and intimidate - no.

I'd agree with everything save for the last part, but maybe even that too. DeLay's message wasn't aimed at judges; it was a gobbet of raw meat pitched to his constituents, some of whom have guns, and some of whom have been primed with the repeated Repub buzzphrase, "activist judiciary" and tuned to a fine pitch of outrage by all this demagogic drumbeating. It's entirely possible that DeLay wasn't thinking about the possible consequences of his statements. That's part of his problem.

I am going to go with the merely stupid theory. He was stupid and irresponsible to say what he did. But I don't believe he used the murder of the judge's family as a medium to fan his feathers.

The sad thing with him is I truly don't think it occured to him. Once again, he shot off his mouth without thinking.

Stupid and inappropriate. Yes, I agree.

Premediated to be scary and intimidate - no.

I am going to go with the merely stupid theory. He was stupid and irresponsible to say what he did. But I don't believe he used the murder of the judge's family as a medium to fan his feathers.

The sad thing with him is I truly don't think it occured to him. Once again, he shot off his mouth without thinking.

Stupid and inappropriate. Yes, I agree.

Premediated to be scary and intimidate - no.


Just give it up, bro...there's no winning here. "The Democrats have no message and no vision for America. So they attack Republican leaders in a desperate attempt to block progress on the GOP agenda - lower taxes, a modernized Social Security system, constitutionalist judges and a strong military." (http://www.dcexaminer.com/articles/2005/04/14/opinion/op-ed/22oped13lessner.txt)

Just give it up, bro...there's no winning here. "The Democrats have no message and no vision for America. So they attack Republican leaders in a desperate attempt to block progress on the GOP agenda - lower taxes, a modernized Social Security system, constitutionalist judges and a strong military." (http://www.dcexaminer.com/articles/2005/04/14/opinion/op-ed/22oped13lessner.txt)

Excellent article. Good reading for ALL. But you are right, it doesn't matter to a lot of people, but still an excellent article.

Just give it up, bro...there's no winning here. "The Democrats have no message and no vision for America. So they attack Republican leaders in a desperate attempt to block progress on the GOP agenda - lower taxes, a modernized Social Security system, constitutionalist judges and a strong military." (http://www.dcexaminer.com/articles/2005/04/14/opinion/op-ed/22oped13lessner.txt)Surely you jest!

"Constitutionalist judges?" DeLay's gripe was that the judges had the gall to obey the constitution, rather than DeLay's agenda. The Republicans don't want "constitutiohalist judges;" they want judges who will do what the Republicans want them to do.

"Modernized Social Security system?" Is this the newspeak for killing Social Security as we know it, and replacing it with a completely different system, with a completely different purpose? Of course, without admitting that that's the purpose? I thought so.

Strong military? Oh, you mean a military that is told to fight wars with no end, for purely political purposes. Now, that's an important part of any Republican agenda, but I'm not so sure that the military likes being a political tool, which is not the best use of a strong military.

But you forgot "record deficits," which are as Republican as little foreign wars. Why not include that in your agenda?

When I googled Richard Lessner's name my monitor actually started to tilt to the right.
He writes for Human Events Online which boasts such bipartisan intellectual minds like Ann Coulter . :rolleyes:

Strong military? Oh, you mean a military that is told to fight wars with no end, for purely political purposes. Now, that's an important part of any Republican agenda, but I'm not so sure that the military likes being a political tool, which is not the best use of a strong military.



Have you ever served? A single day?

It'd be best if you didn't mention stuff like that to a guy who lost 'brothers' in Somalia, thanks to the then-sitting CinC.

Strong military? Oh, you mean a military that is told to fight wars with no end, for purely political purposes. Now, that's an important part of any Republican agenda, but I'm not so sure that the military likes being a political tool, which is not the best use of a strong military.




Or "brothers" and "sisters" being killed or injured in the USO bombing in Naples, thanks to terrorists.

Perhaps we should all take a deep breath here. Count to 100.


Think about monkey sex..

Have you ever served? A single day?

It'd be best if you didn't mention stuff like that to a guy who lost 'brothers' in Somalia, thanks to the then-sitting CinC.Ah, so the fact that I have never served in the military (never mind that all my siblings did, including one in Viet Nam--another of those stupid political wars) makes me unfit to comment on the fact that the use of the military for political purposes is inappropriate? Nonsense.

BTW, the "then-sitting CinC" is not the one who got us into the mess in Somalia; that would have been W's daddy.

And what about all those "brothers" who have been killed or maimed in the present, ill-advised foreign adventure? Let's see... I can hear you already--because I think that we never should have gone there, and I am troubled by the needless deaths of America's service people, I somehow am unsupportive of them, while this horrible man in the White House, who started a war which didn't need starting, before our troops were properly equipped, is the greatest supporter of the troops? Thought so. :confused:

Perhaps we should all take a deep breath here. Count to 100.


Think about monkey sex..

We all like to Spank the Monkey!!

http://www.addictinggames.com/monkey.html

...Actually I wouldn't - I can't speak 100% for dmp but I think he might feel the same. This "threat" was obviously referring to something non-violent; maybe something else like....re-election? Or Democratic sponsored bills?

Wow..imagine that.....people from different sides arguing and threatening political support for votes or legislation.

I wouldn't have a problem with Kennedy saying the same thing - he probably has made the same references to people who don't agree with him and/or his party having trouble being re-elected. I actually don't know though. Why?

Because it's no biggie - it's politics...


Are you under the impression that Federal Judges are "elected?" That appears to be the only explanation for linking DeLay's comment that the judiciary would "answer for their actions" to the concept of "re-election."

Are you under the impression that Federal Judges are "elected?" That appears to be the only explanation for linking DeLay's comment that the judiciary would "answer for their actions" to the concept of "re-election."

I think GotZoom was referring to re-election of Democrats rather than the judiciary. Given the loud pontifications that DeLay is fond of, and their sweeping scope, I have to admit that I sometimes find it hard myself to know just what DeLay is saying.

Are you under the impression that Federal Judges are "elected?" That appears to be the only explanation for linking DeLay's comment that the judiciary would "answer for their actions" to the concept of "re-election."

Read the entire thread-you will see I explained my statements several times. You pick the 26th post out of a 57 post thread and jump on it?

Catch up.

Read the entire thread-you will see I explained my statements several times. You pick the 26th post out of a 57 post thread and jump on it?

Catch up. You're right. I missed your "explanation." Apparently you interpreted DeLay's remarks to be aimed at Democratic judges, whatever they are, or at Democrats in general.

Considering, however, that the most stinging rebuke of DeLay's efforts in the Schiavo case was contained in Appeals Court Judge Birch's opinion (cited above) and that Birch is a life-long Republican, appointed by Bush, Sr., whose opinions have been fairly consistently conservative, (he upheld the Florida law preventing gays from adopting children, for example,) such an interpretation of DeLay's comments appears doubtful at best.

For the record, there are about 2000 Federal judges. Each year the US Marshall's service records approximately 700 threats to those judges. And while no consolidated list of assassinations is maintained, about 20 Federal judges are currently under round-the-clock protection. In addition, threats are common for prosecutors. (A Federal prosecutor was assassinated in Seattle two years ago.)

So, looking only at the Federal judiciary, it appears that the job is already considerably more dangerous than that of your average attorney, or for that matter, member of Congress.

In that context, and with the recent murder of a judge's family in Chicago and the shootout in the courthouse in Atlanta, DeLay's comments were more than "inartful." Add to them the idiotic ravings of Senator Cornryn (R-Texas) that such shootings are "understandable," and the reaction to DeLay's comments is, itself, "understandable."

I think GotZoom was referring to re-election of Democrats rather than the judiciary. Given the loud pontifications that DeLay is fond of, and their sweeping scope, I have to admit that I sometimes find it hard myself to know just what DeLay is saying.

I certainly had no doubt what he was saying- he urged impeachment of judges who would not impose Evangelical sha'aria on this country. He actually proposed that the judicial system scuttle the Constitution in favor of this new Evangelical fetish the media is focusing on.

In a speech to his supporters, when he launched his idiot campaign to prove his moral "character" in light of his repeated trashing of Federal election laws, he actually told them he was doing God's work, and anyone who was opposing him opposed God.

That is sick. In the meantime, it looks like his constituents are going to dump him. He was never terribly popular in the first place.