DeLay of DeLand: Not That Tight.

Some really juicy, classic DeLay spewing forth for our amusement and horror. Here's an excerpted transcript from an interview with Washington Times reporters at his office on April 13 full text is here, and the second half is the best part, but it's all real schtick).

See if you can find where he says:

1)"Ever is a very strong word."
2)"Look, I'm for an independent judiciary" [and later, at the end of the same answer]..."Read the book Men in Black." [I don't often like Slate, but this gives you the basics on that book, which starts with a foreword by Rush Limbaugh.]
3)"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."

Find all three, and you get a bonus prize: your brain implodes.

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. Let me start out by saying, you can never find anything that I have done for personal gain. Period. What I'm doing is what I believe in, I'm doing it the way I believe in it. Yes, I'm aggressive. I'm passionate about what I believe in, and I'm passionate about winning and accomplishing our agenda. I know since 1995 that everything that we have done has been checked by lawyers, double-checked by lawyers, triple-checked by lawyers, because I know I have been watched and investigated probably more than even Bill Clinton. They can't find anything, so they're going back to my childhood, going to my family, going to things that happened eight years ago. There's nothing there. And they can keep looking. There's nothing there. I have tried to act ethically, I have tried to act honestly. I have tried to keep my reputation - to fight for my reputation - while it's been besmirched, and I have tried to do it in a way that brings honor to the House.
Mr. Hallow: Is there anything you want to change in perception about what you're asking on judges?
Mr. DeLay: Look, I'm for an independent judiciary. I don't know where they get this. When you attack the left's legislative body, they get really upset. But I'm for an independent judiciary. I'm for an independent Congress. I'm for an independent executive. But the Constitution of the United States gives us responsibility for oversight and checks and balances over the executive as well as the judiciary. And we all know that this judiciary is extremely active. I have asked the Judiciary Committee to look at it and give recommendations as to what we ought to do. Read the book Men in Black.
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.

Death, Be Not Proud (or Sorry, Terri. It's Not Only Not Over, It's Growing)

Yeah, I know, she's dead now. That's very significant, and important. Other things are significant and important, too...

For example, Sen. John Cornyn, (R) Texas, offered this on the upsurge in actual violence against the judiciary, while on the floor of the Senate.

I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence.

Thanks, Senator. As a former District Court judge, a former member of the Supreme Court of Texas, and a former Texas Attorney General, maybe you would enlighten us on whether you feel that's a proper way to channel dissatisfaction with the workings of the American judiciary, or digress on whether that's what "courthouse violence" is really about in the first place? Does that conjecture of yours tell us what we need to know about your views on those basic questions? Thanks, I thought it did. No need for you to concern yourself with any sort of "value judgments", or anything like that; barely coded messages received, loud and clear.

I haven't found any mitigating statements to give a more favorable context to the Senator's musings, either at the time, or since (as of this post). I also don't think it's "obvious" (as his defenders will no doubt plead) that he actually believes something contrary to the "conjecture" he gave air to in the Senate.

In light of some of the appeals to violence and uses of force during the Schiavo absurdity, this falsely passive stumping validates and extends the life of the assertions that we are at a constitutional impasse, and that violence is either underpinned by some perceived and unaddressed grievances, or flat out necessary and justified (look at previous Schiavo posts below for details on that).

That threatens to be Terri Schiavo's legacy. Those ideas were not given legitimacy by so many members of our elected government until her world became ours.