Posted on 03/26/2005 7:38:18 AM PST by churchillbuff
"Medved was a little disappointing too".
I agree with that, Medved is way smart but I was surprised at his attitude in this. However I do have a problem with the nurse that claimed TS was injected by MS.
Of course, you realize you're arguing with a poster who believes George Bush is a war criminal, right?
When the smoke of battle clears,
we might be surprised.
Crucifying Hugh Hewitt, Jeb Bush or fellow
FRiends will not bring Terri back.
I find it impossible to wrap my mind around the notion that a human being is dying, and many people have indicated that they would be willing to help her live the rest of her days, even as a vegetable, but she must be "killed" because the law requires it!
Sure, and when the law requires that a 17 year old boy kills a woman because he can get away with it, the same judicial system says no. Tell me again how we are a nation of law. Terri may not live through this, but may she be instrumental in returning this nation to rule by law.
Some would argue that this example is an act of desperation, but it is an appropriate example of where following the "rule of law" blindly can lead.
If one can't draw lessons from history what good is it?
Yes, whatever else he might have done or allowed, Hitler was meticulous about backing it up with the appropriate law. Knowing that, I am eternally suspicious of anyone who uses the "rule of law" as the clincher in any argument!
I listened to Hugh. I was disappointed at him also. I wonder what he would have been doing had he lived in Germany during the rise of Hitler.
Every decision made by Judge George Greer was appealed to higher courts, all the way to the US Supreme Court and none of his decisions regarding Terry Schiavo was overturned on appeal by higher state or federal courts.
The US Supreme Court refused to hear the case without comment from the three hard conservatives on the bench: Rehnquist, Thomas or Scalia. The right leaning Justices: Kennedy and O'Conner,obviously refused to join with the consistent conservatives for a majority opinion to save Terri Schiavo.
We have to deal with the facts. The Shiavo family sought judicial relief, that's why its a court case and any time any person goes into court, there is a 50-50 chance that they will lose. This case has been adjudicated more than 20 times over 15 years.
April 16, 1963
MY DEAR FELLOW CLERGYMEN:
...You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may won ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the Brat to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distort the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression 'of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.
Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to ace the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. ...
...Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood, MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
Don't try to inject facts and/or reason into the discussion, please. :-)
Sad, but true.
It is inconceiveable in Hugh's universe for judges to be lawless. When they are, he goes catatonic.
"Change the law" is the desperate response from someone who hasn't a clue.
You don't have to be a brain surgeon to understand that JEB put his political career ahead of the life of Terri. He's gutless.
Yet another thread to stir up ill will, and with no other point. I am not participating. You guys can argue with churchillbuff if you want. I find it as productive as discussing things with TLBSHOW.
You couldn't be more wrong. What HH has said,repeatledly, is that we don't have the money or the political will to round up and expel the 15/20 million illegals that are in this country. He is adamant that we build a wall all along border of this country, and I paraphrase HH..It worked in San Diego, it's working in Isreal and we need to build a wall here with a super highway running parallel to it.
Still, I refuse to allow this issue to be hijacked.
"Hugh does get it and knows activist judges are the problem. He believes that violating the law ourselvesis not the proper way to remedy the problem. The way to go is to elect the right judges, or, where they are appointed, change the balance in legislatures in order to get more conservative, strict constructionist judges on the bench."
My only comment is that given Hugh's response, you and I will live another 100 years under judicial tyranny while the entire political structure gets changed by Hugh's "fast moving solutions to the problem".
If we do not directly challenge the authority of the courts via our elected officials and legislators, "nothing" will happen to free us, I repeat "nothing". If Hugh were the legal counsel to George Washington, we would have saved ourselves a war.
You're right.
Terri is just being used.
It comes down to a battle between
those who would murder her
and those who would martyr her.
I, too, was disappointed in Hugh's comments in this regard. He placed the rule of law above that of the justice it seeks to implement. I don't think anyone believes that laws implement perfect justice, but in cases where it is blantantly causing an injustice, do we just shrug our shoulders and say the rule of law must prevail?
These situations are not common, as we have many safeguards built into our laws to prevent such injustices, but in extreme and rare cases, those safeguards fail. It is absurd to say that such events would become common place. If they were common, the rule of law would suffer, and that would be a bad thing.
I think the executive should step in, under such rare cases, and bring justice where the laws fail to do so. The executive is completely restrained in engaging in such action, by the legislature's impeachment power, and the voter's will.
Wow. I'm surprised that Hugh puts the judges on such a pedestal. I don't get the guy's show here, but based on the threads I'e read over the years, I thought he was smarter than that. This country is no longer a nation of laws - - it has become a nation of judges.
I had a fit when Hugh brought up Socrates to get us to kowtow to a corrupt judge. The argument was pathologic at best and was not relative to the situation. I guess I never figured HUGH out until yesterday then his whole legal approach made sense. He is a sellout to the legal profession. "Of the attorneys, for the attorneys and by the attorneys" egad.......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.