The, whatever, the Constitution

by Chris Bowers, Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 08:15:55 AM EDT

DeLay in a panel discussion with the Moonie Times editorial board:Mr. Dinan: You've been talking about going after activist judges since at least 1997. The [Terri] Schiavo case gives you a chance to do that, but you've recently said you blame Congress for not being zealous in oversight.

Mr. DeLay: Not zealous. I blame Congress over the last 50 to 100 years for not standing up and taking its responsibility given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them.

Mr. Dinan: How can Congress stop them?

Mr. DeLay: There's all kinds of ways available to them.

Mr. Dinan: You tried two last year on the Defense of Marriage Act and the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Senate didn't go along with those.

Mr. DeLay: We're having to change a whole culture in this - a culture created by law schools. People really believe that these are nine gods, and that all wisdom is vested in them. This means it's a slow, long-term process. I mean, we passed six bills out of the House limiting jurisdiction. We passed an amendment last September breaking up the Ninth Circuit. These are all things that have passed the House of Representatives.

Mr. Dinan: Are you going to pursue impeaching judges?

Mr. DeLay: I'm not going to answer that. I have asked the Judiciary Committee to look at this. They're going to start holding hearings on different issues. They are more capable than me to look at this issue and take responsibility, given the, whatever, the Constitution.

There is no comment I can make that can serve as an appropriate repsonse to what DeLay said in this interview.

Tags: Republicans (all tags)

  • 14 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

14 Comments

Shadow_head_small
privacy is a bad thing?
by nehemiah 2005-04-14 08:32AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: privacy is a bad thing?
He's talking about abortion, but I'm sure privacy in general is a bad thing for him.
by Chris Bowers 2005-04-14 08:40AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
DeLay and the Constitution
Tom DeLay is, once again, deficient in both scholarship and intent.  The right of judicial review dates back more than 200 years (not 50 or 100) to Marbury v. Madison in 1803.  The separation of church and state is part of the first amendment (Congress shall pass no law regarding establishment of religion).

DeLay represents the very kind of buffoonish tyrany that led to these restrictions against absolute government.  He either failed high school history or forgot it.

by David Kowalski 2005-04-14 08:49AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: DeLay and the Constitution
Judicial review to protect individual rights goes back even further than Marbury.  James Madison himself had Tom DeLay in mind as an evildoer of the future:

Statement of Madison on June 8, 1789, introducing the Bill of Rights in the First Congress:

If they [the Bill of Rights] are incorporated into the constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardian of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights.

And as for protection of unenumerated rights like the right to privacy: while Madison says "rights expressly stipulated for" in the Bill of Rights, he also introduced the 9th Amendment specifically as a savings clause for unenumerated rights:

...it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This...may be guarded against. I have attempted it...[referring to the 9th Amendment]

by Steady Eddie 2005-04-14 10:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: DeLay and the Constitution
He neither failed it nor forgot it.  He's no dummy.  He knows that if he says separation of church and state is not in the Constitution and Congress has the power to divest the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over constitutional questions, then a good deal of people in America will believe him.  Why?  Because they wouldn't know the Bill of Rights from toilet paper.  To them, Article III is a Gap ad or something in a newspaper (not that they read newspapers).

That's what were up against.

by PeteyP 2005-04-14 11:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Totally unbelievable
does DeLay ever listen to himself?

2006 will be a democratic landslide.

I am getting more optimistic by the minute.

by MarcTGFG 2005-04-14 09:38AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Totally unbelievable
Dems win big in 2006. Take back the House, and gain seats in the Senate (tough cycle to win majority in the Senate).

Tom DeLay goes down hard like Tom Foley did in 1994. So does Santorum, and a few others, including some supposedly "safe" candidates.

by wayward 2005-04-14 03:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The scary part is...
..he actually has large groups of followers that believe what he says and hang on his every word.

This about power and aggression.  DeLay is losing power and he's desperately trying to find ways to rally his supporters and hold on to them.

And with an interview at the Moonie Times, no less.

He's an invertebrate scum.

by carla 2005-04-14 10:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Valley DeLay, Starring Nicolas Cage
We should totally take judicial review out of the hands of these nine so-called gods and place it in the hands of the One True God and First Father: the Reverend Moon.

I suggest remixing DeLay's last sentence fragment: "The Constitution?!? What-EVER!!"

by norbizness 2005-04-14 10:09AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Actually, there's an easy answer!
http://www.richardmorrisonfordistrict22.com/contribute/contribute.php

Richard Morrison for Congress from the 22nd District of Texas. A Dean Dozen (2004) Candidate.

"There is no comment I can make that can serve as an appropriate repsonse to what DeLay said in this interview."??

There is no more comment more eloquent than cash - well, OK, Visa/MC - it's a way to comment in Tom DeLay's native language.

by ericd1112 2005-04-14 04:58PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Distraction
Mr. Hurt: Have you ever crossed the line of ethical behavior in terms of dealing with lobbyists, your use of government authority or with fundraising?

Mr. DeLay: Ever is a very strong word. But whatever I may have done had absolutely nothing to do with the B-3 bomber.

by realitique 2005-04-14 06:31PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
DeLay
It's like the Reps never learned anything from the Lewinksy witch hunt.  Voters are going to punish them if they go down this road.
by alhill 2005-04-14 07:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Beat me to it
I was going to diary on this same segment from The Wash Times but I forgot to because of completing my taxes.  Chris is quite right that "right to privacy" is really about abortion (and to a lesser extent homosexual conduct) but usually the Repugs have the good sense to not come out and say they are against a right to privacy.
by comotion 2005-04-16 01:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I am very interested in this
I am very interested in this
尖锐湿疣 性病 尖锐湿疣 咪喹莫特 明欣利迪 疣迪 尖锐湿疣 咪喹莫特 咪喹莫特 疣迪 明欣利迪 疣迪 艾达乐 咪喹莫特 尖锐湿疣 尖锐湿疣 尖锐湿疣 尖锐湿疣
by hpvv 2005-12-19 09:55PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------