Just to let you know how insane loudmouth bullyboy Tom DeLay is, check out these comments from VP Cheney:
Vice President Cheney says he opposes revenge against judges for their refusal to prolong the life of the late Terri Schiavo, although he did not criticize House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) for declaring that they will “answer for their behavior.”
Cheney was asked about the issue on Friday by the editorial board of the New York Post. He said twice that he had not seen DeLay’s remarks, but the vice president said he would “have problems” with the idea of retribution against the courts. “I don’t think that’s appropriate,” he said. “I may disagree with decisions made by judges in any one particular case. But I don’t think there would be much support for the proposition that because a judge hands down a decision we don’t like, that somehow we ought to go out — there’s a reason why judges get lifetime appointments.”
And that reason is an independent judiciary, something that rankles would-be theocrats like DeLay.
Jorge
Well played by Cheney. He gets to take the popular position with out actually taking a stance on what Delay has said. By claiming not to have seen Delay’s comments, he can say that he is only talking about someone else’s take on what Delay may or may not have said.
wild bird
Nahh we just remove them from the bench we need to have term limits for judges who abuse their power
Tom
Saner Than DeLay
Can we set the bar a tad lower than that?
ppgaz
Well, Cheney is right there with the innermost insiders in terms of staying on message. If he is downplaying the DeLay tantrums, then the insiders are not amused by the Hammer. Further indication that DeLay’s power and influence may be in serious trouble.
“There’s a reason why judges get lifetime appointments.” The most sane thing I’ve heard a Bush insider say in a long time.
I love to bash ’em as much as anybody, but in this case, I have to give Cheney his props. He is absolutely right.
Tom
Oh, I’d agree. I’m just saying “Saner Than Delay” doesn’t say much.
glennk
It’s a sign of the times isn’t it when we are looking to Cheney for some sanity. God help us!
ppgaz
Point well taken.
Tom
It gets worse. Senator Cornyn (R-TX) had this to say:
“I don’t know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. . . . And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have.”
Kimmitt
Oh, Cheney’s pretty rational — witness his comments about gay marriage. He’s utterly unprincipled, though; he’ll ride the wingnuts as far as they’ll take him.
KC
Republicans in Congress are working hard to appear irrational and out-of-touch, just witness Senator Cornyn’s remarks today about federal judges. Mimicking the boisterous stupidity of the radical left of the early 70s is apparently their strategy for victory in 2006.
TM Lutas
A little history is in order. The media have been popping questions at Republicans for a long time that mischaracterize colleagues statements and looking for an angry retort to something that wasn’t said. Bush just recently got caught by this on immigration when he was asked about people being “hunted” at the border and he said he was against vigilante action. That was twisted by the media into a claim that he was against people observing the border and calling the police to make legitimate arrests (the minuteman project).
Frankly I don’t know what Tom Delay said and really doubt this sort of “kremlinology” means anything other than VP Cheney is wise to the media twisted words game.
Jorge
I actually agree about the media twisting quotes around. So, I’ll let this one stand on its won.
—-Sen. John Cornyn (R) of Texas said the following on the senate floor yesterday …
“I don’t know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that’s been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in – engage in violence.”
Mr.Ortiz
Re: Cornyn’s remarks
What “recent episodes of courthouse violence” could he possibly be referring to if not the one in which the unhinged loser of a medical malpractice suit murdered a judge’s family in Chicago, and the one in Atlanta where an alleged rapist stole a gun and went on a killing spree, murdering at least four people before giving himself up? Are these really the people the Republican party wants to align themselves with?
Saner than DeLay is easy. This guy’s crazier!
Veeshir
“He’s utterly unprincipled, though; he’ll ride the wingnuts as far as they’ll take him.”
Now that’s funny. I think Cheney watched Howard Dean and then John Kerry throw any principles they might have had out the window and then try to ride the wingnuts to victory, He’s seen it’s a loser’s strategy up close and personal.
But you can keep hoping Kimmitt.
Mr Furious
Shorter Cornyn: “Nice judiciary you got there, it’d be shame if something happened to it.”
And TM, you shouldn’t have to look hard to find DeLay’s comments. Just emerge momentarily from your Cheney/Bush deniablility bubble, you’ll find them, and you’ll know that the media wasn’t twisting much of anything. Big Dick can handle himself fine.
Delay’s fucking rabid, and Cheney jerked his chain.
Karen
Under the Constitution the Congress has the ability to organize the lower courts and throw a judge off the bench for bad behavior through impeachment. This is the check and balance on the judiciary. No rational person believes this should be applied for the Schiavo case and it wouldn’t get anywhere if it was tried but to pretend it would violate the independence of the judiciary is to leave no recourse against a bad judge. We’ve all heard of judges ignoring the laws passed by Congress and usurping the power of Congress. If not for the power vested in Congress to address these issues, how do we deal with these judges?
Mr Furious
Well, Karen, I guess you deal with them by inciting their assassination. At least that’s the right-wing Republican plan…
Now, I realize murdered judges are not Cornyn’s literal desire, but he’s happy to use the issue/implied threat for political gain to motivate his wingnut base and also to attempt to intimidate the judicial branch.
Of course, none of the judges at any level in the Schiavo case committed any, even remotely, impeachable offense. So there is no constitutional recourse, since there was no offense.
In fact, they were anything but activist, especially at the Federal level. But those facts don’t whip up the base… Make it known far and wide that these activist maniac judges are running around unplugging helpless hospital patiants, and somebody, somewhere better stop them, because these rogue judges have no respect for Congress or the Law, and they sit on the Bench as long as they live…
Karen
Mr. Furious,
Don’t be a jerk. I wasn’t defending Cornyn’s remarks. I was commenting on the ability of Congress to reign in judges, both right-wing and left-wing. In addition, the Constitution does not, to my knowledge, explain what is meant by “good behavior”. It is up to the people’s representatives to decide that. I would hope it would take truly egregious behavior and not political disagreement to impeach a judge but, with the state of politics as it is (and always has been), this could change.
You know, it would be nice to have a debate without all the flame-throwing. As far as I can see, neither side has covered themselves in glory during this episode.
Aaron
Nice return fire, Karen.
ape
“he’ll ride the wingnuts as far as they’ll take him”: what an excellent summary.
it’s very handy that Cheney didn’t hear the comments. and that he said so twice: “no enemies to the right”.
at the end of the day, all these wingnuts voted for Bush-Cheney. and it wasn’t an accident. all Bush-Cheney needed to do was say, “no, we are not fighting for Jesus. creationists, anti-abortion bombers and Pat Robertson are lunatics who have no place anywhere near our party”, or something like that, rather than, “Do you not
think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm”.
At the time of the election and afterwards, John Cole (along with many others) expressed the view that the concept of the GOP as the ‘religious right’ was little more than baseless name-calling.
Andrew Sullivan got a hell of a lot of stick for refusing to support the party largely on those grounds (as well as the deficit & torture).
the truth is that the ‘moral issues’ which determined the election represented the definitive importance of the Christianist beliefs in determining the outcome. this was an entirely rational reason to not support Bush at the election, just as it is now. you can blame Bush for his supporters.
Mr Furious
Sorry for the flame, Karen. Despite my jerky delivery, my point was that one man’s (or many’s) disagreement with a verdict does not constitute an impeachable offense. Cheney is right, there is a reason for lifetime appointments
Parker
It does seem to me that the bar for getting rid of a federal judge is set rather high.
Lifetime appointments also seem an excessive measure, especially in light of increased longevity, often involving an extended period of declining health and ability.
Are there NO federal judges currently in office that are ‘worthy’ of impeachment and removal?
Perhaps getting rid of a few bad apples would reintroduce a balance that currently seems lacking.
You should be able to know the law before the fact, but sometimes it seems you must be able to read the mind of (at least) five supreme court justices to be able to do that.
I want their judgement, but I want it to be of what the law is, not what they feel it should be.
5-4 decisions that seem to me to directly contradict the constitution undermine my confidence. The fact that there seems to be no real counterbalance undermines it further.
I wish I had a suggestion better than ‘impeach a few, to make the rest thoughtful’, though…
Jon H
Parker writes: “Perhaps getting rid of a few bad apples would reintroduce a balance that currently seems lacking.”
Think about that.
When the GOP controls congress, they’ll get rid of judges they don’t like, and appoint conservative judges.
When the Democrats control congress, they’ll get rid of Conservative judges, and appoint liberal judges.
And in the worst case, it’ll be used as a threat to coerce judges into ruling in favor of some corrupt bastard like Tom Delay, so the corrupt can stay in power.
Or, it’ll be used to coerce judges into ruling in favor of the government when the Feds try to increase their power over the citizens.
Judges need to be independent. Otherwise, they’ll be corrupt, and citizens and liberty will suffer.
Thomas J. Jackson
Now why would A MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH PROPOSE ACTION against a member of the judiciary for the “snort” reason that the judiciary was acting in a manner that both preempted the role of the legislative branch and then ignored the mandate of both the executive and legislative branches. I mean the nerve, judges are appointed for life, they are not elected, they are not accountable. Except to the Constitution which empowers the legislative branch to remove those members of the judiciary that do not carry out their duties.
Gee I guess Delay is to be held in contempt for calling for enforcement of the constitution against those that ignore it.
Birkel
John,
Interesting company you keep these days.
Kathy K
Mr. Furious has a point:
“Judge Greer, the public enemy number one on the right? A Florida state circuit judge. The kind who run for office every six years. He won reelection with 65% of the vote last year in Florida after several years of Schiavo rulings (a big story in florida for years), so perhaps Tom DeLay and Cornyn should shut the fuck up, because Greer was endorsed specifically by citizens of Florida, and will face voters and answer for his “behavior” when (if) he runs for reelection again.”
And my bet is that when (if) he runs again, he will get elected again.
Mr Furious
Folowing up on my point earlier, the people who really need to shut up about the judges “unaccountability” are blowhards like Rush and Hannity. They have been hammering this point ad nauseum. Claiming the whole justification for Congress’ intervention was justified because the state court judges were off on their own planet, and there was no venue for recourse for the citizen-victims except through elected representatives. Ignoring the fact that Floridians elected these judges, and can oust them next cycle.
Yanking a case to federal court to go before a lifetime-appointed federal judge does not address their supposed concerns at all. It was forum-shopping, pure and simple. It also had the benefit of stalling the outcome (or so they hoped) and would offer a court-bashing opportunity if they lost (which they did–and knew they likely would). Republicans thought it was a win-win proposition: shop for a better verdict, or use the bad verdict to malign the federal bench and push for Bush’s nominees.