posted on April 20, 2005 05:30:26 AM new
Updated: 07:26 AM EDT
DeLay Criticizes Supreme Court Justice
Calls Work on Schiavo Case 'Incredibly Outrageous'
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, AP
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay describes some federal judges as isolated from the public.
· DeLay Under Ethical Cloud
WASHINGTON (April 20) - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay says Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's work from the bench has been "incredibly outrageous," his latest salvo at the federal judiciary in the weeks following the courts' refusal to stop Terri Schiavo's death.
DeLay also labeled a lot of the courts' Republican appointees as "judicial activists," a term applied by conservatives to judges they dislike for not following what they call strict interpretations of the Constitution.
The No. 2 Republican in the House has been openly critical of the federal courts since they refused to order the reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube. And he pointed to Kennedy as an example of Republican members of the Supreme Court who were activist and isolated.
"Absolutely. We've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That's just outrageous," DeLay told Fox News Radio on Tuesday. "And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."
A spokeswoman for the court, Kathy Arberg, said Kennedy could not be reached for comment.
Although Kennedy was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Reagan, a conservative icon, he has aroused conservatives' ire by sometimes agreeing with the court's more liberal members. Nevertheless, it is unusual for a congressional leader to single out a Supreme Court justice for criticism.
Dan Allen, a DeLay spokesman, declined comment on the interview.
DeLay himself has been criticized for his comments following Schiavo's death, which came despite Congress' passage of a law giving the federal courts jurisdiction to review her case. They declined to intervene.
"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," DeLay said in a statement.
He apologized last week, saying he had spoken in an "inartful" way.
Conservatives have been pushing to get the Senate to confirm President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees, which Senate Democrats are blocking. The House has no power over which judges are given lifetime appointments to the federal bench.
However, DeLay has called repeatedly for the House to find a way to hold the federal judiciary accountable for its decisions. "The judiciary has become so activist and so isolated from the American people that it's our job to do that," he said.
One way would be for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the clause in the Constitution that says "judges can serve as long as they serve with good behavior," he said. "We want to define what good behavior means. And that's where you have to start."
AOL straw poll question and answers below.
Do you believe Tom DeLay when he says he's never violated a rule or law?
No 83%
Yes 13%
I'm Not Sure 3%
Total Votes: 10,742
posted on April 20, 2005 08:01:50 AM new
And I guess you support censorship of freedom of speech. Why can't Delay criticize them if he want? Or is it only OK for you demos to have an opinion?
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
It's a pretty sad day in America when one cannot criticize the judiciary and even individual judges without being accused of advocating violence against judges. This strained connection is but another example of liberals trying to chill conservative speech.
As if all the charges against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay were not enough, the Left has also implied that DeLay was inciting violence against judges by a remark he made during the Terri Schiavo turmoil.
DeLay said, in reference to judges who ruled in the Schiavo case, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."
I'm sorry DeLay apologized for the "inartfulness" of the statement (though he did not apologize for its substance). Personally, I don't think he should have apologized at all, because nothing in it in could be construed as advocating violence against judges.
DeLay had every right to speculate that the public would eventually hold judges accountable for exceeding the bounds of their constitutional authority, regardless of whether or not you agree with him that judges acted imperially in the Schiavo case.
It's regrettable that some have hinted at a nexus between recent episodes of courthouse violence – the murder of a state judge in Atlanta and the massacre of a federal judge's immediate family in Chicago – and the public's angst against unaccountable judges. Both crimes were committed by people with case-specific motives.
No one seriously believes the murders were motivated by indiscriminate anger against the judiciary or judicial activism. It's laughable to think the killers were crusaders on a mission to restore the constitutional separation of powers.
This spurious alleged relationship between anti-judiciary rhetoric and violence against judges is actually part of a larger anti-conservative slander the Left has been pedaling for years. The theme is simply: "Conservatives are angry, hateful individuals within a hair-trigger of lurching into violence. We must discourage, even sometimes outlaw certain speech that might incite these lunatics to violence."
Hate crime statutes and the speech codes we see on university campuses throughout the land are grounded in the notion that certain speech begets violence. Staving off such violence has long been the Orwellian justification for suppressing certain speech.
Anti-harassment and anti-bullying regulations at public high schools issue from the same mindset. It's not bullying or harassment the drafters of these regulations are targeting – since such conduct is never permitted under any school's behavioral code – but certain conduct-specific speech with which they disagree. No, these codes are generally designed to prevent students from airing their opinions, for example, disapproving of homosexual behavior.
At South Windsor high school in Connecticut last week, four students were sent home because they wore T-shirts with the slogan: "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," in response to an annual Day of Silence organized by the national Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Only one side of the message – pro-homosexual – is acceptable, because to permit free speech of the opposite message is to incite violence against homosexuals.
Remember when Bill Clinton, while musing about the Oklahoma City bombing, fingered "hate-talk radio" as the "purveyors of hate and division" who "leave the impression, by their very words, that violence is acceptable?" Or how about when columnist Carl Rowan opined that he was "absolutely certain" that "the harsher rhetoric of the Gingriches and Doles creates a climate of violence in America?" Then there was Bryant Gumbel, who said, "The bombing in Oklahoma City has focused renewed attention on the rhetoric that's been coming from the right and those who cater to angry white men."
Let's also not forget that former Senate Majority/Minority Leader Tom Daschle suggested that when Rush Limbaugh and others attack those in public life, their listeners "aren't satisfied just to listen." Daschle argued there is actually a connection between rhetoric critical of public officials and threats of violence against them.
The examples pointing to this imaginary connection, including the writings of Jeffrey Rosen and Dana Milbank in the Washington Post, are seemingly endless and varied. But the intended message is always the same: Red-staters are, on the whole, an uncivilized, unstable and violent lot who can't be trusted not to storm into violence when their political and religious leaders issue criticisms against people or institutions.
While far too many liberals apparently can't fathom this, conservative ideas and speech are neither hateful nor conducive to violence. It is important that conservatives recognize this Leftist tactic for the bullying and intimidation that it is and ignore it, and never surrender their right and obligation to call attention to forces, such as judicial activism, they see as damaging to the republic.
Attorney David Limbaugh is the author of the pull-no-punches expose of corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice Department, "Absolute Power." Autographed copies are available in WorldNetDaily's online store.
posted on April 20, 2005 10:42:55 AM new
Bear and Libra, I posted the article hoping readers would look into the issue about Tom DeLay. Once people become fully informed about Tom DeLay then they can decide if he warrants his position in government or not.
If you want to ask me what I personally think of people like Tom DeLay. I will be more than glad to answer.
