Posted on 03/24/2005 10:36:06 PM PST by cinnathepoet
Hitler had "judges" and they put down "law". But it wasn't "rule of law". The rule of law is law is made by free people and can be changed as understanding deepens. It's not the rules of eliets for eliets.
I am sickened that our judges have fallen into the elitist crap of inferior cultures. The "rule of judges" is beneath us. Have they no shame?
So our judges deserve some criticism. But we should not be too harsh. For example, it would be wrong to suggest, as some conservatives have, that our judicial elite is systematically biased against "life." After all, they have saved the life of Christopher Simmons. It would be wrong to argue, as some critics have, that our judges systematically give too much weight to the husband's wishes in situations like Terri Schiavo's. After all, our judges have for three decades given husbands (or fathers) no standing at all to participate in the decision whether to kill their unborn children. It would be wrong to claim that our judges don't take seriously legislation passed by the elected representatives of the people. After all, our judges are committed to upholding the "rule of law"--though not, perhaps, the rule of actual laws passed by actual lawmakers. And it would be wrong to accuse our judges of being heartless. After all, Judges Carnes and Hull of the 11th U.S. Circuit told us, "We all have our own family, our own loved ones, and our own children."
while i don't always agree with Bill Kristol and often do not, every now and then he has an opinion that moves me to give him just one more chance...
The check and balance already exists: the independent executive.
But almost everyone, including Hugh Hewitt, thinks the executive police power is subordinate to judges.
It is not.
It's time to drive the Nazgul into the sea (or at least back home to Canada).
Terrific article!
I wasn't sure how Bill Kristol was going to come down on this given we've had our disagreements in past. Glad to see this piece. Well done, Mr. Kristol.
I got his point.
%%%
Following the radio talk shows on this topic has been very illuminating as to the variety in people's perceptive and reasoning powers.
We use English to communicate and assume that we are speaking the same language, but it is surprising to me how much miscommunication is happening all the time. The use of humor, irony and sarcasm, for example, are just not understood by some people.
I agree with the court that standards have "evloved". Also that we are a "maturing society".
Couldn't one take that very same premise and point out that "juveniles" are not getting LESS mature, they are maturing at an earlier age. We've seen the studies for years. Menses cycles coming earlier, younger and younger girls having babies, sexualized TV and music, etc. In fact, the very same liberals say a teen aged girl is "mature" enough to decide on her own abortion.
This is the kind of convoluted thinking one gets when "maturing" societies with "evolving standards" stop relying on their constitution and turn instead to judges to tell them what's "right".
I think Gandalf is probably off shooting fireworks somewhere while Frodo and Sam are either enjoying a good feast or putzing around in the garden.
If our system of government has stopped working, it's because too many Americans haven't taken the time, made the effort or worked diligently enough to make sure we were always doing what was right.
Most of us, myself included, are too busy, too tired, too angry and too involved in just keeping our own heads above water. So we escape whenever we can, to the table, to the garden, to the sports arena.
All I can add is: Thank God He was willing to die for our sins.
If this tidal wave is going to be turned around, a fair number of people who see the truth are going to have to gird their loins and be willing to sacrifice person comfort, financial prosperity or security, even family relationships, the approval of others, and much more. If we try to remain in our comfortable little lives while all hell breaks loose, we are like the good Germans whose church was near the railroad tracks.
When the cattle cars came by and they could hear the imprisoned people screaming, they just sang their hymns louder so as not to be discomfited.
Now such people are condemned, along with those who actively helped the slaughter.
He's being sarcastic, that's how--ironic--saying "yes" when you mean "no". It's obvious to everyone else here.
</sarcasm> ;^)
Here's what I'm finding. People with money want to leave that money to their families, not to a hospital or a rich doctor, or nursing facility for care that extends a persons misery not their life. They don't see that Terri's situation is different. And if they do see that possibility, they don't want her case to rob them. She becomes a threat to their ability to pass on resources to loved children and grandchildren. They don't "get" the differences.
People without money don't understand why someone would want to off another human without so much as a look at the situation. And because they have nothing invested personally, they don't "get it" either.
Then there's some who operate from principle beyond "what's in it for me". And that group has to find the compromise. Because, the incentives are strong on both sides. And these choices have bad unintended consequences.
Go here for similar ideas from Wretchard.
http://www.wretchard.com/blogs/the_belmont_club/default.aspx
I hadn't considered that angle. That's a good possiblity, too.
But I think some folks just want this woman dead, because they are tired of hearing about her, and seeing pictures of her in the news. They feel annoyed by it. So...they just want her dead. Out of sight, out of mind.
I've seen the reaction you're talking about with liberal feminist. They don't want to consider that Terri might have been abused by Michael. Sets up weird cognitive dissidence.
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.