Parliamentary maneuvering continues.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), who pushed Congress to consider the legislation, said yesterday that he is "confident that this compromise will restore nutrition and hydration to Ms. Schiavo as long as that appeal endures."
DeLay said he did not know if it would mean she would be spared indefinitely. "That's not the point," he said. "The point is that Terri Schiavo should have the opportunity. We should investigate every avenue before we take the life of a living human being, and that's the very least we can do for her."
The gall of DeLay to make a statement like that, considering his [link|http://activote.ontheissues.org/AVA/House/Tom_DeLay.htm|position on the death penalty and habeas corpus], that is unbelievable. It's clear to me that he's doing this because he thinks the Republicans can get political advantage from it.
Continuing from the WP story:
House members today were scrambling to return to Washington from across the country. Leaders acknowledged yesterday that they expected some Democrats to object to the legislation, which would prevent the bill from passing in the House under rules available for today. So House leaders said they are likely to have to meet again, at 12:01 a.m. Monday, when they can put the bill on a calendar that would deny Democrats some ways to stall action.
With lawmakers scattered from Iraq to Australia, leaders hope to use parliamentary methods -- such as a voice vote rather than a roll call -- to pass the bills without calling back their entire memberships.
They feel so strongly about the importance of this legislation, but they aren't willing to have their members put their name on a vote. Hmmm.
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said yesterday that the outcome is clear and that it is "just how we get there." He said that if Democrats demand a roll call vote, Republicans will need to come up with 218 votes and two-thirds of the House, and he said it would be "just a matter of time" before enough of the 232 Republicans could be rounded up to do that. A vote would not begin until then.
I wonder how much of this is bluster to intimidate the Democrats so that they won't call for a roll. I hope that there are enough people in Congress that will stand up, speak out, and prevent this legislation from going forward. If it does somehow pass, I hope the courts immediately strike it down as a violation of the Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws, a violation of the principle of Separation of Powers, and a violation of Article III of the Constitution.
Grrr.
Cheers,
Scott.