Saturday, April 09, 2005
Tom DeLay is a liability
Conversations with House Republicans in the past week leave me with one clear impression: If DeLay falls, it will not be because he took questionable trips or put family members on the payroll. It will be because he is anxiety-producing and may become a political liability.
Being conservative, the American people don't want leaders who perpetually play it close to the ethical edge. They don't want leaders who, under threat, lash out wildly at beloved institutions like the judiciary. They don't want leaders whose instinct is always to go out wildly on the attack. They don't want leaders so reckless that even when they know they are living under a microscope, they continue to act in ways that invite controversy.
House Republicans like what DeLay has done, and few have any personal animus toward him, but his aggressiveness makes them - and his own constituents - nervous. Only 39 percent of DeLay's Texas constituents said they would stick with him if he were up for re-election today, a Houston Chronicle survey found.
I will admit, I do not like Tom DeLay. I do not like his brand of hardball (see the mid-decade redistricting in Texas, for example). His ethical edginess -- family on the payroll and such -- is damning evidence of transporting arrogance. His hostility is much better suited to minority Whip than majority leader. But even if you like DeLay being DeLay, recognize that he has become just about the harshest public face of the Republican Party. He would be a lot more effective if he were a lot more humble.
1 Comments:
By 
Sean Sirrine, at
Thu Apr 14, 02:23:00 PM:
I've gotten a lot of response to my post Tom DeLay, Go Home, in which people seem to think I am anti-DeLay. Nothing could be further from the truth. I certainly don't agree with his politics, but that has nothing to do with my stance on him as a Representative. He was voted in by Texans, and if they like his politics, that is their business not mine. I am simply attempting to show some logical inconsistencies in DeLay's remarks on the judiciary. I do respect, however, his ability to be honest about his opinions rather than proclaiming a popular opinion without acting on it. I don't have to agree with DeLay to respect his mastery of this lost art.
The Boston Globe has this news story about how Tom DeLay has apologized for his rash remarks on the judiciary:
House majority leader Tom DeLay apologized yesterday for saying federal
judges are 'responsible" for the death of Terri Schiavo. But he added that he
has asked the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the judges who declined
to order that a life-sustaining feeding tube be reinserted for the brain-damaged
Florida woman, as part of a broader review of 'judicial activism" that he
suggested should extend to the Supreme Court.
At the news conference, DeLay said he wanted to clarify his previous
statements by restating that he thinks the country should have an 'independent
judiciary." He also apologized for saying that judges who reviewed the Schiavo
case will soon 'answer for their behavior" after ruling against her parents,
who wanted her feeding tube replaced.
Unfortunately, DeLay still believes that:
At a news conference yesterday, DeLay said Congress retains oversight of
the federal courts and should use it to hold judges accountable. He said the
Schiavo case, in which federal courts refused to intervene despite extraordinary
efforts by Congress and President Bush, warrants particular scrutiny.
It seems that DeLay still doesn't understand what happened in the Schiavo case. The federal courts DID intervene; they just decided that DeLay and the other members of Congress that supported the bill had incorrectly interpreted the law.
For some legal background, here is a great article by John Dean that deals with some of the issues involved in a judicial impeachment, including:
Toward this end, once confirmed by the Senate, a federal judge is effectively
tenured for life, or as Article
III of the Constitution sets forth, they "hold their offices during good
behavior." In addition, also under Article III, judges' compensation cannot be
reduced while they are on the bench. Good behavior, as Hamilton made clear, is
"to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws."
Judges can only be removed because of their "Treason, Bribery or other
high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Only a handful of federal judges have ever been
impeached under this high standard. And Congress's failure to impeach and
convict Chief Justice Samuel Chase made clear that mere disagreement with a
judge's decisions, or judicial philosophy, is not grounds for removal.
So, what are the ground of impeachment? There are none, DeLay is simply wrong, honestly wrong, but wrong none-the-less.
