« More on the Right to Choose | Main | Our Broken World »
Friday, April 08, 2005
DeLay's Strategy: Divert, Divert!
It seems that Tom Delay's new strategy to deflect attention from his scandal-besotted tenure is to excoriate judges for their judicial restraint in light of Schiavo. Bravo, Tom!
There's not too much to cry over in the downfall of DeLay's henchman Jack Abramoff, but let it be said that Abramoff is no longer bankrolling the jobs program that was once Stacks Kosher Deli here in DC. During its brief life, Stacks was teeming with employees milling about, but none seemed too interested in waiting tables effectively. Not to mention that the food was bad (gefilte fish out of a jar! Yuck!), and the portions weren't big enough either :)
DM
Posted by Administrators on April 8, 2005 at 08:27 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef00d8343fde4853ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference DeLay's Strategy: Divert, Divert!:
Comments
MJ:
1. Liberals tend to criticize individual judges and decisions, whereas conservatives seem, every few years, to go totally nutso and say the entire system has "run amok," based on one decision. Liberals seem to have enough common sense and sanity to recognize that the hypocrisy and idiocy of five justices in Bush v. Gore doesn't mean that the whole legal system needs to be torn down by its roots. Tom Delay does not seem to share such sanity.
2. Liberals, and honest conservatives, tend to criticize decisions when they disagree with them. Tom Delay appears to be criticizing the judiciary only to distract the public from his own extreme misconduct.
Posted by: Paul Gowder | Apr 8, 2005 2:25:06 PM
Sorry for the multiple posts - non-responsive computer stuff.
Posted by: MJ | Apr 8, 2005 1:57:13 PM
Serious question for the prawfs and their readers:
If you believe (as reasonable people can and do) that the Florida courts and the Federal Courts (M.Dist of FL and the 11th Cir.) exceeded their authority in one, striking down "Terri's Law" (FL courts) and two, ignoring the call for de novo review of the evidence in the statue the congress passed and the President signed(the federal courts), what is wrong with condemning the acts of the state judges, who are elected officials after all, and criticizing the federal courts.
1. If that is improper, then what means (I doubt that you are advocating court stripping legislation) do the two elected branches have when a state or federal court is (arguably) acting improperly? Just shut up and live with whatever the courts decree? (I would guess that means no more criticism of the conservatives on the Supreme Court for Bush v. Gore - you might chill the Court's independence!)
2. How is it that Rep. Delay's remarks, which are unquestionably a direct criticisms, and Sen. Cornyn's statement, which is at best innuendo, are more damaging to judicial independence than the daily castigation of conservative judges and appellate court nominees? (And upon request I can provide reams of horrendous things said about the judges who are currently being filibustered and conservative Justices like Thomas and Scalia).
Assume for one minute (without judgment) that conservatives feel the same way about some of the recent decisions (Lawerence, Grutter, Simmons) that the left feels about Bush v. Gore. I didn't hear, and still haven't heard, any clarion calls for criticism to be muted re: Bush v. Gore lest we undermine the independence of the judiciary. Why not?
In short, it doesn't appear to me that the left has a monopoly on restraint when it comes to complaining about federal and state judges. Roy Moore anyone?
Posted by: MJ | Apr 8, 2005 1:55:45 PM
Great forum for discussion. I wanted to put to you and your readers a serious question about the criticism directed at Rep. Delay for his remarks:
If you believe (as reasonable people can and do) that the Florida courts and the Federal Courts (M.Dist of FL and the 11th Cir.) exceeded their authority in one, striking down "Terri's Law" once it was enacted (FL courts) and two, ignoring the call for de novo review of the evidence in the statue the congress passed and the President signed(the federal courts), what is wrong with condemning the acts of the state judges, who are elected officials after all, and criticizing the federal courts.
1. If that is improper, then what means (I doubt that you are advocating court stripping legislation) do the two elected branches have when a state or federal court is (arguably) acting improperly? Just swallow whatever the courts decree?
2. How is it that Rep. Delay's remarks, which are unquestionably a direct criticism, and Sen. Cornyn's statement, which is at best innuendo, are more damaging to judicial independence than the daily castigation of conservative judges and appellate court nominees? (And upon request I can provide reams of horrendous things said about the judges who are currently being filibustered and conservative Justices like Thomas and Scalia after Bush v. Gore).
I'm not being smarmy, I actually want to know if left-minded folks honestly feel it is dangerous to judicial independence for the two elected branches to criticize the courts? If so doesn't the routine castigation of conservative judges, nominees, and potential nominees who would someday like to be judges, have an equally chilling effect on their independence?
Posted by: MJ | Apr 8, 2005 1:34:31 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.