Tom Delay: Political hack, or nutjob? You decide.
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7500988/

What? WHAT?! Judicial activism? He's actually stupid enough to bring up judicial activism and Schiavo in the same breath? Wow. Just, wow. The Schiavo case is as clear cut a case of legislative activism as there ever was, and he's trying to turn it around into a judicial activism point. Yikes.

He's been quoted as saying that many many times in the last month or so. Judicial activism. I'm sure he wouldn't be saying that if the judges had acted in the "righteous" way that DeLay saw fit.

I honestly think the guy is slightly nuts. I've read some bios on him lately that make me cringe. He's said and seems to believe some pretty out there things.

Yes, becaue it's only judicial activism if you don't agree with the ruling.

Honestly, the courts practiced the exact opposite of judicial activism in this case.

One of the phrases absolutely guaranteed to raise my hackles is "judicial activism." Inevitably this is code for "didn't get the decision I wanted." Coming from Joe or Jane Average, I'm slightly more sympathetic; most people really don't understand how judges make decisions and what the limits are. I sure as heck didn't. But frankly, I would have expected Delay to know better.

In fact, I've already had the opportunity to read numerous cases where judges put in little footnotes that basically say "hello? bonehead legistlatures? we're being forced to apply your stupid law. you don't like it? change the damn law!" Only they say it in a more learned fashion.

nutjob.

I just love it when we can call someone who believes Christianity is the only way as a nut.

I wish Leo was here- I would like to hear his opinion, whatever it is.

DeLay isn't a nutjob because he believes Christianity is the only way. Everyone in America is entitled to believe that their religion (or lack thereof) is the only way. It's just that in a representative government, our leaders are expected to hold up the Constitution, not the Bible. A moral leader is a good thing. I just don't want my leaders to impose their morals on me.

And I hope that Leo recovers fast enough to get in on this thread, too.

"Definitive" "Comprehensive"

Someone who uses those kinds of adjectives to describe ANY religion, I don't care what it is, has a seriously distorted perspective.

I have zero problems with someone holding those sorts of personal views -- even "definitive" and "comprehensive". What our nation struggles with is the boundary between personal moral code and The Moral Code. Some people hold a moral code that compels them to establish standards to which they would hold all citizens -- not merely standards they themselves try to follow to the best of their own individual abilities. That is what makes me nervous. And moral codes can vary widely even within a group such as, say, Christians. Many Americans are adverse to what they see as paternalistic behavior.

It's an uneasy balance and the boundaries are not well defined. But once drawn they're difficult to alter. I think we need the system of checks and balances to make sure the boundaries aren't placed hastily and without contemplating potential ramifications.

Is this from a scary 3 am infomercial? Believing in something is all well and good, but his lack of respect - and apparent lack of knowledge - of other forms of worship and belief is astounding and frightening.