DeLay on CSPAN calling Michael Schiavo "abusive" "not a man" "murderer"

[DesEtoiles]

[spooky3]

1. I always turn to DeLay for guidance on ethics and morals.

[MichiganVote]

2. He'll end up with a libel suit against him

[spooky3]

3. good point!

[XanaDUer]

4. He cannot be sued.

When he lied and bathmouthed Kerry on the floor of Congress-we cannot touch him.

As long as he is speaking in his congressional role, he is untouchable.

[spooky3]

6. actually, I think he can be

Kerry is a public figure and as a target unfortunately has fewer rights than Schiavo does when it comes to slander, libel, defamation, etc.

But I'll leave it to one of our DU lawyers to set us straight.

It would be nice if at least Schiavo could get a settlement or make a public comment in response.

[XanaDUer]

11. I think it is in article I of the Constitution.

...

[spooky3]

17. check this out while we're waiting for the attorneys to chime in...

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=24026

[XanaDUer]

31. Ok

But did he says those things while on the floor of Congress?

"In its lawsuit, CAIR said Ballenger's defamatory statements harmed the group's reputation and were not protected speech because he did not make them within the scope of his role as a member of the House of Representatives. The suit says Ballenger's claim that CAIR raised funds for terrorists was made "with actual malice, wrongful and willful intent to injure...and with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity." CAIR is seeking $2 million in compensatory and punitive damages, together with costs and attorney's fees.

They also cannot be arrested while Congress are in session.

[spooky3]

32. link please?

If this is what you are thinking of, immunity from arrest seems to be an inherently different principle than being sued for libel or slander or defamation:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Congressional+immunity

Recall also that the President was sued.

I suspect that the issue is whether DeLay is protected in his speech because his comments had to do with a bill or negotiations pending in Congress and whether that constituted speech within the scope of his role. But again, I'd really like to hear from people who specialize in this.

[XanaDUer]

33. It's from the link you gave me.

I copied it from the link you provided.

[spooky3]

34. no, I mean a link to support your point of view and assertion about

the relevance of being on the "floor".

The scope of the role seems to be the key point.

[XanaDUer]

35. Now you've lost me.

You told me to check your link.

I did. It said that Ballenger's defamatory remarks were not protected speech because he did not make them within the scope of his role as a member of the House of Reps.

So, while we await an attorney here, does that mean that, since his remarks were outside the scope of his role as a member of the House of Rep., then what he says within the role (disgusting as it may be) is protected speech?

Here is one thing:

"Members of Congress are privileged from arrest during a session of Congress except for a serious offense. Congressmen may not be sued for libel for what they say on the floor of Congress, and they are paid salaries from the U.S. Treasury in accord with laws that they themselves pass..."

http://www.rockvalleycollege.edu/show.cfm?durki=1218


Affirmed in Hutchinson v. Proxmire":


Immunity imbroglio

"Finally, one of the world's most prominent democracies, the United States, endorses this privilege in its Constitution. It provides that members of Congress are immunized from liability for statements made in "speech or debate." However, this immunity does not apply to statements made outside of Congress. This was most recently confirmed by the US Supreme Court, which in the 1979 case of Hutchinson v. Proxmire, confirmed that immunity only protected congressmen for statements made during official congressional business, not statements for public consumption..."

So as long as they are saying it during official congressional business, they can say what they want.

http://www.phnompenhpost.com/TXT/letters/l1404-1.htm

And:

"Barney Frank, a Left-wing Democrat Congressman, added: "Congress has given itself immunity from libel and slander so it can insult anyone but we can't say anything about Senators. We need to allow references to the Senate when they're relevant..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/26/wcong26.xml

[XanaDUer]

36. PS-DU lawyers?

Can you assist us with this?

[spooky3]

37. OK, I won't post after this because once again, my interest is in

having a legal expert address this rather than to continue to speculate about a legal matter that may be complex.

I asked you for a link to back up your assertions. That's all.

Thanks for the links--I'll take a look at them.

But let me try one more time to clarify what I thought was said above.

It is not clear that calling someone a murderer who clearly is not a murderer as defined by our laws is behavior within one's Congressional role. Just because someone says something while on the floor is not necessarily logically the definition of within-role. It may be that there IS a court case or some other legal precedent that defines it to be, and that's what I am looking for--that is what I was asking for in a link. In the absence of that I don't think one defines the other, and I am looking for definitive legal evidence about this, not to be told simply another opinion.

An analogy illustrating why something is not necessarily in role may be this: a manager may sexually harass an employee on the job, but that's not within his or her role to do so. The manager clearly did it while at work. But she or he exceeded the boundaries of his or her role. So my question is whether there is something that legally provides broad protection for slanderous speech for Congresspeople to use against private citizens.

It IS clear that immunity from being arrested while serving in Congress is NOT the same thing as being sued privately. Remember the somewhat similar Paula Jones case, although obviously there the defendant was a President and not a member of Congress.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

45. I'm not a constitutional expert and don't know many lawyers that are

but his words are LARGELY protected by the "speech and debate" clause of the constitution. That protection is not absolute, but I would suspect what he said on the floor of congress would be protected. If congress took up the role of debating this issue, then he is certainly acting within the scope of his congressional role even if his statements are inflammatory.

[spooky3]

39. If you'll read your own links more closely, you'll note that

a--all of these are interpretations of legal documents or expressions of views rather than legal documents.

b--the second in particular made the point that "statements for public consumption" were distinguished from other statements:

"This was most recently confirmed by the US Supreme Court, which in the 1979 case of Hutchinson v. Proxmire, confirmed that immunity only protected congressmen for statements made during official congressional business, not statements for public consumption."

I would say that it is possible that comments appearing on C-Span or other outlets to which DUers and everyone else had access could be interpreted as statements for public consumption.

Again, it appears to be an area where there are court cases or other precedents that we need to have to get the answer.

OK, I'll self-censor from this point on.

[XanaDUer]

40. Fine.

.

[MichiganVote]

9. Since when is calling a common citizen a murderer a role of Congress?

He should be sued to shut up his mouth.

[XanaDUer]

10. Excuse me?

No need to be so belligerent with me. I'm not saying he's doing something good.

[spooky3]

21. I don't think MV meant to be belligerent. His/her point may be that

Congresspeople's speech is protected only when it falls within the scope of their role as a Cong.

[MichiganVote]

24. Right. No belligerace intended.

[XanaDUer]

29. No problem.

Of course it's disgusting.

Typical Republical hyperbole.

[MichiganVote]

23. You misunderstand me. Rhetorical question only.

[Mika]

5. I pray to gawd that he (Michael S) does file one.

:bounce:

[DemoTex]

7. They are truly insane.

Cynical bastards. Hypocritical bastards. Lying bastards. Crazy, crazy bastards.

[leetrisck]

8. Delay couldn't stop with talking

about the bill - he just had to throw in everything he could think of - even tried to be Dr. Delay - my, aren't we all impressed. Tom Delay talking about someone else's ethics and morality is sickening.

[kerrygoddess]

12. Email DeLay and ask him

Who Spoke for Baby Sun?
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=581

[Mass]

13. May be you should email that to the media

I just followed Delay's press conference on CSPAN2 and nobody asked him the question.

For the rest, I was close to throwing up. From what Delay was saying, you could imagine that Terry Schiavo was ready to get up and go for a walk and nobody in our brilliant media called him on that.

[Kingofalldems]

14. Last night

Delay called Schiavo's lawyer 'the epitomy of evil'. And I bet the fundies ate it up.

[rodeodance]

15. Santorium just gaveled the Senate open for Terri Bill

[rodeodance]

16. Frist says House has worked nonstop last 3 days on the issue

[rodeodance]

18. bill is 2 pges--allows a Fed. court case to be heard

[rodeodance]

19. they also are doing another bill

[rodeodance]

22. they are asking the Senate to convene on Palm Sun with no roll call votes

[Mass]

20. As Tom Delay said, it will take a long time.

[rodeodance]

25. they did their dirty deed and and left the stage

[KayLaw]

26. Well

I think he's one old boy who needs an attitude adjustment. . .same for any scum who casts a vote his way.

[w4rma]

27. That's libel. Schiavo is not a public citizen. He has grounds to sue DeLay

From what I understand.

[TheWebHead]

28. DeLay has been pretty loose with slanderous remarks on this issue

not just on the floor, but in press conferences and on an interview with CNN he called Michael Schiavo's lawyer "the personification of evil."

w/ Blitzer:
DeLay: "That lawyer is, frankly, the personification of evil. I've never seen anything so barbaric as that interview."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/18/wbr.01.html

[Cha]

30. When in reality..delay Is the

"personification of EVIL" And is busy trying to deflect the spotlight off of his ethics hearings..gawd I hope he gets busted!

[zulchzulu]

38. And Michael responds: DeLay is a drunk, a crook, a liar and war pussy

DeLay knows he needs to keep the eye off him by playing a bad actor... I can't wait until this sop-headed slimebag goes down.

[spanone]

41. I hope Mike has his lawyer on speed dial. Slander is illegal.

What proof does this pompous ass have for his accusations?

[Dr Fate]

42. I admire DeLay's use of blunt, agressive language thats easily understood

I'd love to hear some DEMS grow a pair and refer to DeLay or Bush with similar language.

[phish420]

43. There is a special place in hell for DeLay

I promise you that

[Contrary1]

44. Just for the hell of it...

I hope that every single case involving patients in a persistent vegetative state is brought before umpteen courts, congress, the senate and the Supreme Court no matter what that person's desire is/was.

Then maybe the great minds in Washington will be too busy to start any more wars.

I sincerely hope this poor woman's heart stops beating before any new laws are enacted, she died a long time ago.

[OneTwentyoNine]

46. How many times can we say it, FUCK YOU DeLAY...

The most corrupt,piece of crap politician to ever walk the halls. Now HE'S lecturing about ethics?!?!?

FUCK YOU DeLAY....

[JackD76]

47. Thank God

I am so glad that all of the problems that our country was having in the past few years are now gone and the congress can focus on less important things. Hell, with the troops back home, peace in Iraq, the debt gone, and bin laden caught, we can focus on things like people's person family matters and professional baseball players shooting steroids in their asses.

If I am ever in that state, instead of just dying, i hope that republicans, even the corrupt ones, fighting to keep as a vegetable.