Mad Dog Santorum: The charade continues

Extra chromosome Republican Rick Santorum and Tommy "Bugman" Delay are now threatening punitive action against judges who wouldn't "issue a new finding of fact" in the unconstitutional efforts of Congress to force a different ruling from the courts. What a bunch of assholes.

Terri Schiavo Judges Should be Held Accountable Senator Says

by Steven Ertelt

LifeNews.com Editor

March 30, 2005

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A leading U.S. Senator says two judges who ignored legislation passed by Congress and subpoenas issued by Congressional committees should be held accountable.

U.S. District Judge James Whittemore twice went against Congressional legislation that required halting Terri Schiavo's painful starvation death. The measure also allowed Terri's parents to have a complete federal hearing on the merits of their lawsuit, which Judge Whittemore also ruled against.

"For this judge in this district to ignore that is tantamount, I believe, to an offense that should be discussed in the Congress," Senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, told Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity in an interview Tuesday.

"What we asked for in the Congress was a new finding of fact," Santorum said. "And this judge in this district ignored it, snubbed his nose at Congress, I think against the law. I think he should be held accountable for it."

Without naming him, Santorum also criticized Circuit Court Judge George Greer for ignoring subpoenas Congress issued seeking to question Terri, her estranged husband Michael and hospice administrators.

The subpoenas were issued in an attempt to stall removing Terri's feeding tube, but Greer overruled them and reissued his order authorizing Terri's death.

On Fox News Channel's "Hannity and Colmes" program, Santorum said he has talked with members of Congress about looking into the judge's actions.

"[W]e cannot continue to expect that the laws that we pass and the intentions are clear, that are just simply ignored by the judges and have their nose, basically thumb their noses at us," Santorum said. "And here is a situation where the intent of Congress was clear."

Santorum said members of Congress returned to Washington "for one reason, so the feeding tube could be reconnected and a trial, a new trial with new evidence, could be presented. For this judge in this district to ignore that is tantamount, I believe, to an offense that should be discussed in the Congress."

Meanwhile, the chairman of Florida’s House Judiciary Committee said on Tuesday that he will consider beginning an impeachment investigation into Judge Greer's ruling.

Rep. David Simmons, a Republican, says he has received numerous calls and emails about an investigation and also received an Internet petition with 30,000 signatures.

According to an Empire Journal report, Simmons said “we will look at it and analyze it” but said he wasn’t “committing to do anything other than review what any constituent tells me as a representative and as chairman of the Judiciary Committee to look at”.

Earlier, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said he would pursue contempt charges against Greer for ignoring Congressional subpoenas.

"The Congress will pursue this, if we have to hold him in contempt of Congress," DeLay told radio talk show host Sean Hannity.

"We will do everything to enforce the power and authority of the Congress and no little judge sitting in a state district court in Florida is going to usurp the authority of Congress," DeLay added.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, echoed DeLay's concerns.

"Federal criminal law protects witnesses called before official Congressional committee proceedings from anyone who may obstruct or impede a witness’ attendance or testimony," Frist explained.

"Anyone who violates this law is subject to criminal fines and imprisonment," Frist said.

Reaping the wind...

I saw some of the taped interviews. Words can't do justice to my reaction.

Now that this poor woman has passed on, this issue should die with her. If either side of the question continues to try to make political hay out of it, they should be taken outside the town gates and stoned.

RE: Reaping the wind...

>I saw some of the taped interviews. Words can't do justice

>to my reaction.

Inhale deeply, breath... You probably had about the same reaction I had.

>Now that this poor woman has passed on, this issue should die

>with her. If either side of the question continues to

>try to make political hay out of it, they should be taken

>outside the town gates and stoned.

If there is any good news here, it is this: At least, for the moment, gay marriage isn't the hot button issue du jour. However, because the "life" issue is, I went in, had my living will updated and will shortly make an appointment with my doctor to discuss what to do with him.

--EBG

>Santorum said members of Congress returned to Washington "for

>one reason, so the feeding tube could be reconnected and a

>trial, a new trial with new evidence, could be presented. For

>this judge in this district to ignore that is tantamount, I

>believe, to an offense that should be discussed in the

>Congress."

>"Anyone who violates this law is subject to criminal fines and

>imprisonment," Frist said.

Fucking amazing. What this really is about is an all-out attack on the very idea of an independent judiciary. Santorum, Delay and Frist sound like Mafioso trying to intimidate the judiciary by telling all judges that if they rule "the wrong way" (i.e., different than the religious right wants them to rule), they will be "held to account" - through all means of punishment including, as Frist said, "criminal fines and imprisonment."

Threatening judges with IMPRISONMENT over judicial rulings they issued? What the fuck!?!? Not even Vladimir Putin does that. This is way beyond anything I've seen before. If we have no independent judiciary, we have no freedom - it's really as simple as that. And how chilling that the media says nothing about any of these truly fascistic decrees. Isn't it time to show videos of Terry Schiavo looking at that balloon again?

What they never mention is that it wasn't just this one single District Court judge who refused to insert the feeding tube. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals - the second most conservative circuit in the country - also refused, as did every justice of the Supreme Court. And one judge yesterday on the 11th Circuit wrote a scathing attack on the Congress and the President for their intervention in this case, and opined that the law they enacted was profoundly unconstitutional. And that judge is an extremely conservative Bush I appointee.

If anyone pays attention, they will see how truly dangerous some of the people with real governmental power have become. But I don't think anyone is really paying attention.

Doug:

I couldn't agree more with everything you've stated in your post. This brand of madness and hubris ought to be exposed, but we sure as hell can't count on mainstream media to do it.

Your assertion that probably no one is paying attention is sadly true. After all, with the kinds of stories that generally dominate the coverage by the mainstream, like Martha Stewart, Michael Jackson, Robert Blake, fat chance that this would ever rate a mention.

I'm a registered voter in Pennsylvania and will keep the calls going to Santorum's staff. We know (a) that Santorum is in a tough fight for re-election (b) members of Congress pay attention to calls, e-mails and letters. I have met Santorum in work related situations and actually liked him slightly, so I do not come across as a fanatic

when talking to his staff. I am under no illusion that my calls make any difference, but who know what may happen if many more people called and wrote to him. Above all, Santorum is up for re-election in a marginally blue state; his views are way to the right of most PA voters.

>If anyone pays attention, they will see how truly dangerous

>some of the people with real governmental power have become.

>But I don't think anyone is really paying attention.

Actually, a lot of people having been paying attention, and have been saying this for a long time. (I don't want to be an "I told you so" type, but mine was not the only voice warning about the dangers of this crowd, by far!) In fact, the majority of Americans voted AGAINST George W. Bush in the year 2000, which was the beginning of the end when the U.S. Supreme Court abandoned its traditional states rights stance and usurped Florida's sovereignty by putting an end to its vote-counting process and declaring Bush the winner. That decision gave no end of aid and comfort to the right wing enemies of the Republic! Apparently the courts have had some second thoughts about the consequences of abandoning their principles since then! Unfortunately, it was too late as far as the Executive and Legislative branches are concerned.

For four years the KKKristian KKKrazies have been broadcasting their intentions, but happily for them George W. Bush managed to distract the attention of the majority of Americans by his phoney-baloney war in Iraq and all the phoney-baloney "rally 'round the flag" propaganda. In 2004, there were still enough voters who were scared by Bush's rhetoric and constant phony terrorism alerts, and perhaps still not recovered from the psychological shock of 9/11, who ended up voting for Bush because they bought into his message of not changing horses in midstream. Added to the classic/traditional conservatives and the millions of KKKristian KKKrazies to whom the Republicans have brazenly pandered for years now, that was enough to give Bush a small but real majority in 2004. Without the smoke-and-mirrors of Iraq and terrorism and nationalistic jingoism, many of those "scared" voters as well as the classical/traditional conservatives would probably have voted against Bush, because they don't support theocracy.

I'm glad my new best friend is finally understanding the threat to our most fundamental liberties and institutions this crowd represents. Much better late than never. I hope that means that there are millions of others like him who are also seeing the light and realize that they've put the Republic in danger without meaning to.

The latest DeLay/Santorum/Frist rantings make it clear that this country is being run by a deranged clique, including the sociopaths in the White House. It's obvious that their motto is "Damn the Constitution, steamroller ahead!" At least the Judiciary finally seems to have understoond the danger! That's something, but it's a slim reed on which to base a lot of hope, as the Judiciary is the weakest branch of government, and can only react, not prevent.

Unfortunately, Americans find themselves in a gigantic Pottery Barn. The majority broke the system, and now they're going to have buy what they broke and live with it! It should be a good reminder to people to THINK before they give away their votes, because there are consequences when you make mistakes!!!

In a phone call recorded by PageOneQ and blogACTIVE.com, Robert Traynham, Director of Communications for United States Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) has said he is an out gay man who completely supports the Senator.

When asked how a gay man could speak for one of the nation's most notorious homophobes, Traynham, left, protested that has "been with the Senator for eight years." Traynham went on to say "Senator Santorum is a man of principle, he is a man who sticks up for what he believes in, I strongly do support Senator Santorum."

When pressed on whether he supported the Senator's stands on lesbian and gay issues, Mr. Traynham abruptly ended the phone call by saying "Senator Santorum is a family man with "I have been with Senator Santorum for eight years and I am very proud to be with him."

An attempt to follow-up with a question was met with Mr. Traynham hanging up the phone.

Find out the true meaning of Santorum...

http://www.spreadingsantorum.com

neologism

Santorum now has a google problem:

Former GOP Sen. Rick Santorum (PA) has a problem: he's eying a run for president, but his name recognition is weak. And Google, as it turns out, isn't really helping his brand image.

Enter "Rick Santorum" into a Google search and you should get over half a million results. But two out of the top four are references to a sexual neologism coined as a tribute to Santorum's past denunciations of homosexuality.

The neologism? Anal sex

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/16/rick-santorum-owns-up-to-his-long-running-google-problem/

Karma is a real bitch, ain't it? Santorum is an also ran who will enver have any further political success. The 2012 nominee will be Sarah Palin. Sure, the political establishment will be behind someone else, say Mitt Romney, but she'll pull a Christine O'Donnell, get the nomination and will thereby ensure a second term for Obama.

Remember, Nick, no Democrat since 1940 has twice been elected Pres, except that Ross Perot twice elected Clinton. Obama is not a good bet, no matter what the Republicans do.

Karma is a real bitch, ain't it? Santorum is an also ran who will enver have any further political success. The 2012 nominee will be Sarah Palin. Sure, the political establishment will be behind someone else, say Mitt Romney, but she'll pull a Christine O'Donnell, get the nomination and will thereby ensure a second term for Obama.

You don't think a gay Republican ticket, such as John Boehner and Lindsay Graham, might make it a race?

Republicans would no more elect a gay man than they would a black man. Conservatives are just now comfortable with the idea of strong women. It'll be another thirty of fourty before they stop being scared of blacks and at least a hundred or more for gays.

Karma is a real bitch, ain't it? Santorum is an also ran who will enver have any further political success. The 2012 nominee will be Sarah Palin. Sure, the political establishment will be behind someone else, say Mitt Romney, but she'll pull a Christine O'Donnell, get the nomination and will thereby ensure a second term for Obama.

Yea unless there's almost any third party candidate (does the name Michael Bloomberg ring a bell) in which case all bets are off. Given the rabid right wing nuts in the House and the proclivities of this particular Supreme Court, I've already begun to practice saying "President Palin" without gagging on my words.

Remember, Nick, Colin Powell was by far the favorite of Republicans for the Presidency in 2000, but he declined to run and Bush was nominated. There is absolutely no basis for your claim that the Republicans would not nominate a black person. There are indeed, a couple of possibilities for 2011, including Herman Cain.

Remember, Nick, Colin Powell was by far the favorite of Republicans for the Presidency in 2000, but he declined to run and Bush was nominated. There is absolutely no basis for your claim that the Republicans would not nominate a black person. There are indeed, a couple of possibilities for 2011, including Herman Cain.

Powell did not run because he knew the GOP would not nominate a black man. While I am more famliar with Herman Cain than you, since Herman hails from Atlanta, I can tell you that he has no chance at the nomination.

Colin Powell probably wouldn't win nomination, nor would Richard Nixon or Dwight Eisenhower. The Republican party has plunged so far to the right they've dragged the center off kilter.

Sage words from Republican president Eisenhower:

• "Workers have a right to organize into unions and to bargain collectively with their employers. And a strong, free labor movement is an invigorating and necessary part of our industrial society."
  
• "Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of their right to join the union of their choice."
  
• "Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things, but their number is negligible and they are stupid."
  

Times (and the parties) have changed a little, haven't they?

What is your basis for saying Colin Powell did not run because he thought he could not be nominated? At the time he said that he did not have the "fire in his belly", and we were told his wife did not want him to run. He was very popular with Republicans and he looked like a sure winner in the general election. He would attract many minority votes, he had no apparent enemies and was respected by Democrats as well as Republicans.

How can you possibly say Cain has no chance. I personally think it is likely that he will get the nomination. You heard it here first. He is a very impressive speaker and strongly believes the Republican ideology. He is very popular among business leaders. As a black man he will steal part of Obama's base.

Remember, unions are price-fixing conspiracies against the public. Like all price fixing conspiracies they exist to extort from the public higher prices (wages) than could be justified or achieved on the basis of a competitive market. Liberals hate price fixing conspiracies by corporations but love them at the labor level, even though the economic effect on consumers is the same. Employers are bad and should be crushed but jobs and employment are good. Liberals love the golden eggs but hate the goose. The union war against employers has been largely won. A great victory for union bosses. They will finally win the war against the auto industry within a few years.

The strongest unions today are the public sector unions and the teachers union for the simple reason that governments and schools do not have competition. So the unions can squeeze and squeeze without quickly killing the goose as they did in industry. Democrat politicians have been willing co-conspirators, since government workers vote. BUT they are killing the goose. Cities, states and other entities across the country are on the verge of bankruptcy. The goose if finally fighting back.

There was a time when unions probably served a purpose. Alas, we now know what a destructive force the are. It is hard to believe that after WWII we led the world in steel production, ship building, automobiles etc but a huge part of our manufacturing base has been unionized out of existence. Unionized businesses do not compete well foreign competition.

Republicans would no more elect a gay man than they would a black man. Conservatives are just now comfortable with the idea of strong women. It'll be another thirty of fourty before they stop being scared of blacks and at least a hundred or more for gays.

Interesting stereotyping here BON.

Yesterday, I opened a window and politely asked a man, who had parked his car against a 4 story building across my 2 lane street, to please turn down the car stereo he was demonstrating to 3 young ladies. The four story building was acting as a soundwall and projecting some quite obnoxious bass beats against my building. It was like a swarm of 2.5-3.0 earthquakes for 25 minutes before I made my request.

Five minutes later, having had no relief, I walked outside my condominium and yelled across the street, "Turn down your stereo!" to which the man asked, "Oh, am I disturbing you?" and turned UP his stereo. I yelled, "Last warning, I'm going to call the police." (My condo neighbors had already called the police multiple times.)

He proceeded to drive his car into the street, park it diagonally across the center line, trespass on my property and attempt to put me in my place, literally! He called me 'old' (I'm 55 with white hair), 'honky' (I am of European descent), and 'dumb ass'. He told me to 'go back in your house' (it's a condo). When I told him he was trespassing on my private property to which I had every right to be use, he stuck his finger within 2" of my nose and threatened me with bodily harm. I was thinking, "Why is he trying to project power over me with his dominating the street, dominating speech, and dominating presence?"

I never once referred to him by race, gender, age, or mental capacity. When the police showed up (three cars from two different directions, they fully blocked the street, arrested the man while he was standing on my property for his traffic violation, his trespassing, and his assault on me. (They witnessed the finger in my face on my property.)

I'm a conservative, I don't attack people by slamming them with insults, name-calling and threats of physical violence. While he as calling me OLD WHITE HONKY MOTHERFUCKER and suggesting spanking me, I didn't think about his ethnicity, age or to put him down. I was thinking, "Why is he worried about me being old, white and definitely not a motherfucker!"

I vote for Conservatives who may be black, female, and gay as frequently as I've had to opportunity to do so. Strong women, people of ALL COLORS (including my translucence) and people of all sexual persuasions should be respected. If they represent my views I voted for them.

I believe you may be perpetuating a stereotype in your denigration of Republicans not electing a gay man or black man and just now becoming comfortable with strong women - I believe you're pushing the stereotype to an extreme stating that Republicans will stop being scared of blacks in the future and gays in the distant future.

You're stereotyping is just as typical and unfair as those who stereotype against you. When is stereotyping going to end? When we EACH get our way?

I have real issues with the Left's agenda - the tearing down of barriers willy-nilly without thinking things through, debating the issues and coming to some common ground between the left and the right agendas. Until we learn to walk in the other's shoes, we will remain divided and neither of us will achieve our goals. We may WIN somethings but they will be hollow victories without the common agreement of the whole.

I come here and read these slams against groups and it disturbs me. We're so busy broad brushing our opponents while at the same time raging over our opposition's broad brushes against us. Your declarative statements against Republicans is just as hurtful as their broad brush declarations against gays, blacks, and women.

The only way for this to stop is for each one of us to STOP. Walk in the other side's shoes try to understand their arguments.BE RADICAL in your beliefs and BE FANATICAL in your loving acceptance of those who don't believe as you do.

My family is a bunch of liberal breeders. They know I am conservative in my beliefs. They many times say hurtful things to me. My most frequent response to them when they hurt my feelings is, "I hope you see Conservative old me as loving and accepting of you in the midst of our disagreement on that issue." Every time, they all respond, "I couldn't be as open-minded and quiet as you are."

So if you need to spurt this venom on a message board, OK, I get it, but for the love of one another, don't launch those darts at people for the sake of dominating them with your intolerance.

Powell did not run because he knew the GOP would not nominate a black man. While I am more famliar with Herman Cain than you, since Herman hails from Atlanta, I can tell you that he has no chance at the nomination.

Powell didn't run because wife fears/feared a black/Republican president would have three targets on his back. The GOP would have thrown their entire organization behind the first conservative black presidential candidate.

Sage words from Republican president Eisenhower:

"Workers have a right to organize into unions and to bargain collectively with their employers. And a strong, free labor movement is an invigorating and necessary part of our industrial society."

 

• Different time, different economy, different laws

  If a strong, free labor movement was necessary, more private companies would have unions. Unions in the private sector are not successful in organizing because the workers for whatever reason reject being organized. That's why 'card check' is the Democrat's game. If we can get the workers to check a card in their home and mail it in, the unions can coerce the FOR votes. At least that's what the Unions are telling the Democrats.
  

 

• "Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of their right to join the union of their choice."

  Yup, I agree. But only a fool would think Card Check is a good thing as well. The right to a casting a private vote in a union certification election where coercion can be minimized is the best way.
  

 

• "Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things, but their number is negligible and they are stupid."

  Problem is the parties figured out that increasing statutory benefits got them votes, too. So now in a down economy, government cannot collect enough to keep up the 'loan payments' on those votes. And cannot afford to have the votes given back to their opponents. I love the one about, "Vote for Congresscriter A-hole because he really brings home the bacon!" Problem is, he has to kill my pig to give me back just bacon.
  

• If a strong, free labor movement was necessary, more private companies would have unions.
  

So it's your position, while carrying on an argument with a dead ex-president, that unions are public-sector only?

That probably comes as a hell of a surprise to the Teamsters. Or dockworkers, welders, steel workers, auto workers, etc.

Heck, I've been a member of the musician's union for 35 years and it actually *banned* public-sector employees for many years.

I'll step out while you go point-by-point with President Eisenhower, but boy, unions as public sector only? You're NUTS! (In fact, public-sector unions such as AFSCME were first formed as recently as the 60s and 70s. In Wisconsin, ironically.)

I doubt if Eisenhower would agree. He did not know what a disaster the unions would cause in the ensuing 60 years. We have lost much of our industrial base and the public sector is rapidly going bankrupt.

Actually no, my point is that the percentage of private sector union membership is at an all-time low. If it's so damn great, why aren't more workers in unions? Look at the auto industry - Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, BMW, Mercedes-Benz - All have factories in this country, but in Right-To-Work states. Everyone of those companies could have the UAW representing their employees but they don't. At the same time, you never hear about wage and benefit disparagies causing price competitiveness from any of these manufacturers against the BIG 3 and their UAW run operations.

I could go on to point out that Obamacare is a panacea to the UAW, because if they can get Federalization of health care, the UAW is off the hook for it's underfunded healthcare programs - which was a contributing factor in the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler.

And I can add to your list - SEIU wasn't founded until the 1970's.

• If a strong, free labor movement was necessary, more private companies would have unions.
  

 

 

 

So it's your position, while carrying on an argument with a dead ex-president, that unions are public-sector only?

 

That probably comes as a hell of a surprise to the Teamsters. Or dockworkers, welders, steel workers, auto workers, etc.

 

Heck, I've been a member of the musician's union for 35 years and it actually *banned* public-sector employees for many years.

 

I'll step out while you go point-by-point with President Eisenhower, but boy, unions as public sector only? You're NUTS! (In fact, public-sector unions such as AFSCME were first formed as recently as the 60s and 70s. In Wisconsin, ironically.)