Tom DeLay: Still unclear on the concept

From the “I Fought The Law (And The Law Won)” files, I bring you the master of denial himself, Tom DeLay.

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said he never thought the courts would prevent the Republican Party from replacing him on the November ballot, a Houston television station reported Thursday.

“I’m very disappointed in our justice system. There doesn’t seem to be justice,” DeLay told KTRK-TV.


DeLay said efforts to replace him on the ballot weren’t “bungled.”

“We read the law and the law is very specific,” he said. “You’re ineligible if you die, have committed a felony and are convicted of a felony, if you are not mentally capable of serving or if you’ve moved out of the state.”


DeLay said he doesn’t have second thoughts about his decision to resign from Congress and give GOP leaders a chance to replace him on the ballot.

“Knowing what I know now, I don’t think I would have done it any differently because I read Texas law, I knew what Texas law was,” he told the television station.

Remember how on Happy Days the Fonz was physically incapable of saying the words “I was wrong”? DeLay is like that, minus the perfect hairdo, good looks in a leather jacket, and ability to turn on a jukebox by hitting it with his fist. This is your brain on too much lobbyist money, kids. Pay heed or wind up looking like that.

Paul Burka thinks the result is the ultimate expression of Justice. I couldn’t agree more.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts
This entry was posted in Election 2006. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Tom DeLay: Still unclear on the concept

  1. kevin whited says:

    DeLay’s notion that this legal decision that relied heavily on a 1995 5-4 term limits case that nobody even really thinks about these days has much to do with “justice” is bizarre. It was an odd political case that decided a technical/legal matter.

    It’s also not clear why he wants to give journalists and liberal bloggers who obsess over him fodder to do so by continually opening his mouth.

    You’re retired now, Tom. Most people have moved on. Enjoy your retirement, while the grassroots tries to clean up after you! *wave*

  2. Kenneth Fair says:

    It’s funny that Kevin calls U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton a “case that nobody thinks about these days.” It’s the preeminent Supreme Court case to state clearly that no other requirements can be imposed upon the election of federal candidates besides those established in the Constitution. I remember studying U.S. Term Limits when I took constitutional law, and it was the first case that came to my mind when I heard that the Dems has raised an argument concering the constitutionality of Benkiser’s actions.

    U.S. Term Limits might be obscure to the general public, but then again, most Supreme Court cases are. Those who study constitutional law, however, tend to pay attention to cases in which the Constitution is held to provide a bright-line test. Such cases tend to be few and far between, and therefore attract notice and discussion when they occur.

  3. PDiddie says:

    Well Kenneth, Dr. Whited made comments on this blog in the middle days of DeLay’s demise that “almost no one cares about this news”.

    There’s a whole blog (almost) lately devoted to the Good Doctor’s blindingly hilarious pronouncements, and that’s not counting any of his entourage on the Way Out Right, who routinely prostrate themselves at his online feet.

    As a wise man — not Charles Kuffner, but it could have easily been he — once said: “Only a Sith Lord thinks in absolutes.”

    We really should, however, give Dr. Whited a tip o’ the chapeau for finally publicly jumping off Bugman’s bandwagon (aka The Roach Coach).

    Yo, Doc. *waves*

  4. Greg in TX22 says:

    Even though the Fonz couldn’t bring himself to say he was wrong, we still liked him. The same isn’t true for Tom DeLay.

Comments are closed.