Thursday, April 14, 2005
Drunk on Power
Well, yesterday Tom DeLay asked the House Judiciary Committee to review the federal court's role in the Terri Schiavo case. Remember, this was a role he and the rest of his Radical Repulblican cabal forced into the federal courts. But it appears that since the federal courts didn't act in manner to the liking of Mr. DeLay he's going hold them responsible by "reviewing" thier conduct. I wonder if this will include reviewing the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case? If you listen to people like James Dobson, a scary but necessary thing to do, you know that Justice Kennedy is public enemny number one. One quote by DeLay from The New York Times really caught this crank's eye. "'We set the jurisdiction of the courts,' Mr. DeLay said. 'We set up the courts. We can unset the courts.'" Sounds like someone is forgetting the spirit of the Constitution. DeLay is technically correct, but any attempt to tinker with the federal court system on the level that he's planning would throw this country and the whole idea of independent judicary into chaos. It's more short-sighted poltical manuevering from the party of "principles." The scary part is that the principles driving Tom DeLay and the rest of the Radical Republicans are not the same principles laid out in the U.S. Constitution. Today it is the Schiavo case, what happens when Tom DeLay doesn't like the decisions handed down on a terrorism case, or if one of his favorite corporations suffers a legal set back? One of the things that keeps huge amounts of captial flowing into the U.S. to finance the Radical Republican debt is the belief that the U.S. is a country where the rule of law is respected. Not so anymore under DeLay & Co. After spending much of the 1980s and 90s pushing the idea of teh rule of law in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere the Radical Republicans have decided that it isn't such a great idea after all.
Well, yesterday Tom DeLay asked the House Judiciary Committee to review the federal court's role in the Terri Schiavo case. Remember, this was a role he and the rest of his Radical Repulblican cabal forced into the federal courts. But it appears that since the federal courts didn't act in manner to the liking of Mr. DeLay he's going hold them responsible by "reviewing" thier conduct. I wonder if this will include reviewing the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case? If you listen to people like James Dobson, a scary but necessary thing to do, you know that Justice Kennedy is public enemny number one. One quote by DeLay from The New York Times really caught this crank's eye. "'We set the jurisdiction of the courts,' Mr. DeLay said. 'We set up the courts. We can unset the courts.'" Sounds like someone is forgetting the spirit of the Constitution. DeLay is technically correct, but any attempt to tinker with the federal court system on the level that he's planning would throw this country and the whole idea of independent judicary into chaos. It's more short-sighted poltical manuevering from the party of "principles." The scary part is that the principles driving Tom DeLay and the rest of the Radical Republicans are not the same principles laid out in the U.S. Constitution. Today it is the Schiavo case, what happens when Tom DeLay doesn't like the decisions handed down on a terrorism case, or if one of his favorite corporations suffers a legal set back? One of the things that keeps huge amounts of captial flowing into the U.S. to finance the Radical Republican debt is the belief that the U.S. is a country where the rule of law is respected. Not so anymore under DeLay & Co. After spending much of the 1980s and 90s pushing the idea of teh rule of law in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere the Radical Republicans have decided that it isn't such a great idea after all.