The president was slightly more expansive, urging "all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life."
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) issued a statement consoling the family, but condemning DeLay's statement as "irresponsible and reprehensible."
Kennedy implied that DeLay was inciting violence against judges and called on him to make clear he was not. Dan Allen, DeLay's spokesman, described Kennedy's charge as "absolutely over the top [and] unbelievable."
Strategists in both parties were left to wonder about the political implications of a case that has dominated media attention for two weeks. The consensus is that the dispute's specifics are likely to fade for most voters before the midterm elections in 2006 and the 2008 presidential race.
Yet the controversy may reverberate in other ways.
The House's initial response to the Schiavo case was to pass a bill offering a right for review in federal courts in all cases when the family cannot agree on care for "incapacitated individuals." But the Senate rejected that broader approach, insisting on legislation affecting only the Schiavo case.
If conservatives now press the Senate to reconsider, they may face an uphill battle, especially after the polls found strong public opposition to Washington's intervention in the Schiavo case.
The first measure of Senate interest should come on Wednesday, when the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee conducts a hearing to explore these issues. Craig Orfield, spokesman for the Republican majority, said the committee was "just beginning the dialogue ... about whether there is a need for legislation."
The next impact may be felt if Frist and other Republican leaders launch the bid to change Senate rules to prevent filibusters from being used to thwart judicial appointments.
It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. Although most of Bush's judicial nominees have won confirmation, Democrats have used the filibuster, or the threat of one, to block 10 who they charged were too conservative.
Without a filibuster, the judges would win confirmation with 51 votes.
Critics call this procedural change "the nuclear option" because it would end the right to unlimited debate that has characterized the Senate since the very first Congress -- and could also provoke Democratic retaliation that stalls action in the chamber.
