Tom DeLay is insane
Now look, there are some perfectly valid reasons for criticizing Justice Anthony Kennedy (His name is "Kennedy," for example.) But because he uses the internet? Hell, one of my biggest fears about Supreme Court justices is that they don't use the internet enough, and have an insufficient understanding of networking technologies to render a fair verdict on the Grokster case, for example. It's all too easy to imagine these dudes buying into the entertainment industry-supported fallacy that using a peer-to-peer network is an equivalent act to walking into Tower Music and shoplifting a physical CD off the shelf.
Now normally, when people complain about "activist" judges, they find a sympathetic ear with me. What I find bizarre about DeLay's latest jihad, however, is that it was prompted by the whole Terri Schiavo case, in which I believe the judges' decisions were uncharacteristically non-activist, relying strictly on the letter of the law.
But I digress. This whole Tom DeLay thing is now well past embarrassing. The guy very simply needs to go.
Politics is a tough business, and sometimes a politician acquires so much baggage that he can no longer be effective. I think many of DeLay's problems are legitimate and self-inflicted, and I think many of them are not, but are merely the results of the "Let's get DeLay!" herd mentality.
It doesn't matter to me. I have neither the patience nor the inclination to try to parse out which allegations are legit and which are bogus. The point is, he was sleazy and careless enough to allow an opening for the feeding frenzy to take place. He's outlived his usefulness as a politician, and it's time for him to be cut loose. The GOP needs to set aside their misplaced loyalty and take the attitude, "Fine. You got one. Now let's move on."
That's harsh, I know, but like I said, politics is a tough business.
Comments
And by saying that, the Democrats have accomplished what they sought to do.
Look, I am no fan of DeLay - not even close.
But take a closer look into the charges and you will find no examples of corrupt behavior.
Pelosi et. al. skirt this nasty little fact by claiming a 'smell test', whatever the heck that is.
Arrogant? Hell yes! But if you went after every congressman and senator who has exercised arrogance, you couldn't call a quorum.
The fact is that the Dems fear DeLay because he is extremely effective at what he does.
Plus, he had the temerity to ride herd in Austin to get Texas to actually be represented by more Republicans than Democrats, a not unreasonable matter given Texas staunch GOP votes in the presidential elections.
Poor Dems! Boo hoo hoo!
How dare he make the Texas HOR group resemble the vote of its constituents?
The Dems got rid of Lott for saying something stupid.
Amazingly, they failed to punish Chris Dodd (of the Kennedy 'sandwich' fame) for similar comments of insensitivity.
Don't let the Democrats wear you down, kiddo.
Posted by: mal | April 20, 2005 04:11 PM
I am glad to see that there rational republicans left out there. You are absolutely right that Tom Delay should go for the good of the country. Also the republicans should not let the hijacking of their party by the extreme religious right continue. I hope that good people like John McCain and Chuck Hagel will be able to react and reverse the control of the party by extremists like Delay.
Posted by: Blue Wind | April 20, 2005 10:38 PM
Extremist being the operative word here. If DeLay had done nothing wrong, why did he get censured by the ethics committee three times last year while Joel Hefley, a Republican, was Chair of the ethics committee? Why were the Republicans on the committee replaced? Why were they changing the rules? Could it have been to protect the imperious Tom DeLay?
Posted by: Rodriguez | April 30, 2005 10:05 AM
I'm trying to find the logic in criticizing Anthony Kennedy for actually looking for some facts to rule on. The term judicial activist has taken on a new meaning. The current usage is to describe any judge that just made a ruling that you do not agree with. Justice Kennedy, for instance, was a "conservative activist" when he voted in favor of Bush in Bush v. Gore, allowing him to be President, but is now a "liberal activist" because of positions taken in Lawrence v. Texas, the Schaivo case, etc. I'm outraged that Justice Kennedy decides things based on facts and the law rather than the wishes of extremists of either margin. How dare he!!!
Posted by: Rodriguez | April 30, 2005 10:35 AM