Cheney Opposes Action Against Judges in Schiavo Case

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Cheney Opposes Retribution Against Schiavo Judges
By Mike Allen and Brian Faler
Monday, April 4, 2005; Page A04


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."

With no obvious successor to President Bush, some Republicans have begun to buzz about drafting Cheney. "I'm not a candidate, don't plan to be a candidate," he said. "If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve. Is that the Shermanesque statement? I said on television someplace the other day, not only no, but hell no."

The rest of the article found here: Cheney Opposes Retribution Against Schiavo Judges (washingtonpost.com) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23666-2005Apr3.html?nav=rss_politics/administration)



Okay, I never thought he would run anyway, but this kind of response (re: judges) just makes me glad he's not.

[RuffhouseFarm]

This is a non-story because nobody said they were out for revenge against the federal judiciary. This is the media stirring the pot and trying to cow people like Tom DeLay who want some accountability and controls over these judges put into place. Reviewing their conduct and implementing safeguards to control them in the future is not "revenge". I can't tell from the filing if Cheney was asked about that specifically or if 'revenge' was his own word.

[Warlady]

It's not up to Cheney anyway. He's not Congress.

[RuffhouseFarm]

Revenge against Greer is another story, however.

He can be impeached or voted out of office.:thumb:

[Sierra]

Cheney is a realist he knows it’s a waste of time and effort to go after these guys directly far better to use their gross excesses to influence a complete review of the whole question of judicial despotism vs. legislative oversight. The public will not support a witch hunt that throws the baby out with the bath water; but they will embrace the first side that comes up with a sound response to the problem as little by little they become aware of what has been done to them by the black robed tyrants.

As you say Ruffhouse Greer is another kettle of fish it is up to the voters of his state to deal with him as they will once all the facts are known it's up to us to keep them from burying the record of his duplicity in Terri's murder.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I must apologize, I guess it was my "feminine side" coming out of me. My first reaction to the story was, wait a minute -- Greer DESERVES retribution. I DO feel he should suffer the consequences of this unconstitutional action, and his contempt of Congress. I can't help it -- I really feel that way.

I do agree and affirm, however, that going after the judiciary as a whole, to clean it up and restore it to the right track is much more fruitful, noble and just a cause than revenge. But the human side of me, well, it just wants SOMEBODY to pay for this murder -- somebody to be held accountable. Judge Greer SHOULD BE that somebody, IMO.

Anyway, I'm sorry for my inappropriate response when posting the original article. :smirky:

[Wolfcounsel]

"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." --Cheney, from the link posted by HomeschoolrsRUs

Handing down a decision people don't like is different from handing down cruel and unusual punishment in the cold-blooded murder of an innocent person. Sometimes these public servants piss the hell out of me with their asinine statements!

[RuffhouseFarm]

I must apologize, I guess it was my "feminine side" coming out of me. My first reaction to the story was, wait a minute -- Greer DESERVES retribution. I DO feel he should suffer the consequences of this unconstitutional action, and his contempt of Congress. I can't help it -- I really feel that way.

I do agree and affirm, however, that going after the judiciary as a whole, to clean it up and restore it to the right track is much more fruitful, noble and just a cause than revenge. But the human side of me, well, it just wants SOMEBODY to pay for this murder -- somebody to be held accountable. Judge Greer SHOULD BE that somebody, IMO.

Anyway, I'm sorry for my inappropriate response when posting the original article. :smirky:

Cheney was talking about the federal judiciary, not the FL courts.

[Rink]

Congress has the right to make the Federal judiciary responsible for their actions, not Dick Cheney.

Hence this isnt Cheney's business what Congress does he needs to butt out.

Its Congress' business, not Cheney's

[Warlady]

He's wrong regardless of which court he was referring to. I totally disagree with Cheney on this one.

[DesertFox]

Cheney was ast a question. He responded. He was NOT trying to butt into anyone's business.

I nevertheless think he blew this one.

[Warlady]

He blew it big time. He acts like he doesn't realize that Whittemore and the 11th circuit court of appeals totally flipped off Congress. Who do they think signs their paychecks?

[DesertFox]

I think Cheney's playing prudent politics. I do NOT think this is the time to play that way.

[Warlady]

I don't know what he's thinking or even if he is thinking. Surely he has read the articles on judicial tyranny. Or perhaps not.

[RuffhouseFarm]

I think Cheney missed an opportunity to say something about erring on the side of life and that the entire issue needs to be examined closely. To say more than that from his position before the rest of the facts come out in the proper public forum would probably not be prudent. I would have preferred he say nothing - just blown them off - than what he said, but I don't think it's a big deal at all. The WaPo was just trolling for raw meat as usual.

[Warlady]

Well he didn't have to serve it up to them did he? :flame:

[TSawyer2112]

While Republicans in leadership positions allow judicial tyrants to run rough-shod over our Constitutional rights, illegal immigrants to run rough-shod over our borders, and the minority party to run rough-shod over the Republican domestic agenda; they would do well to keep one thing in mind: The Base giveth and The Base can taketh away. Time is growing short for the Republican party to grow a pair.

[Taylor]

Judges can be impeached, not voted out of office. Only politians can be voted out of office. Judges unlike politians are appointed not elected. I have to disagree with Cheney on this one. I think Greer and Whittemore (sp) should be impeached and removed from the bench.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Cheney was talking about the federal judiciary, not the FL courts.

Therein lies the problem ... I was not.

[Riverboat]

The midwest states had their Sagebush Rebellion, ushering in Reagan. Let's call this a Blackrobe Rebellion.

[RuffhouseFarm]

Judges can be impeached, not voted out of office. Only politians can be voted out of office. Judges unlike politians are appointed not elected. I have to disagree with Cheney on this one. I think Greer and Whittemore (sp) should be impeached and removed from the bench.

Greer is an elected state judge. Whittemore is an appointed federal judge.

[Rink]

At the state level Judges are voted in, believe me I remember the last election in my state and I did my utmost to vote the judges to whom i felt were fit for their judgeship offices.

The people vote for them the people should have a right to remove them.

On the Federal level though I am unsure as to how that goes.

I think thats congress' purview, now if they just get a backbone and toss the twits that thumbed their noses at em, then things will start to look better.

(As for the Supreme court, things I think need to be changed soon with these 'lifetime appointed judges' they are fast disrespecting the Constitution by their using 'foreign judicial rulings' in U.S. Constitutional cases, not to mention their lack of will in upholding the rights of the U.S. citizens rights.)

[ILikeIke]

In my opinion:

Cheney: "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."

Last last statement is simply incorrect. Either Cheney is ignorant of the Constitution or it is an outright misrepresentation. I don't believe that he is ignorant of the Constitution. I believe that it is an outright misrepresentation.

Judges do not get "lifetime appointments." They get appointments during "good Behaviour." The word "lifetime" doesn't even appear in the Constitution.

"Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
(bolding mine.)
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

I think that when politicians spout ignorance or misrepresentations like this, we should call them on it.

It is high time that we impeach a few SCOTUS judges for ignoring the constitution. It has been tried before, and it is quite constitutionally legal. In my opinion, it is a constitutional duty of the U.S. House and Senate, because they are required to enforce the "good Behavior" term of judges through their impeachment and removal powers. It's the constitutional law. Delay is right that congress has been shirking their duty to keep them in check, if he said that.
"The Supreme Court and the Politics of Impeachment
On Principle, v4n4
August 1996
by: Matthew J. Franck"
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v4n4/franck.html

[Rink]

The Supreme Court judges get lifetime appointments, and there's no way to get rid of them once they're int here except old age or poor health.

[ILikeIke]

The Supreme Court judges get lifetime appointments, and there's no way to get rid of them once they're int here except old age or poor health.

Not true. False.

Read the constitution, if you don't believe me.

Read the link above, by Franck, if you don't believe me. "Samuel Chase" was a supreme court justice who was impeached for issuing disagreeable rulings. It has happened before. It is quite legal.
http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=241513#post241513

(edit 6:43) Made a few clarifications.(/edit)

[RuffhouseFarm]

Not true. False.

Read the constitution, if you don't believe me.

Read the link above, by Franck, if you don't believe me. "Samuel Chase" was a supreme court justice who was impeached for issuing disagreeable rulings. It has happened before. It is quite legal.
http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=241513#post241513

(edit 6:43) Made a few clarifications.(/edit)

Don't hold your breath.........on either point.