Posted on 03/26/2005 7:38:18 AM PST by churchillbuff
Hugh's been strong in defense of Terri -- till yesterday, when he devoted a lot of time denouncing those (like Dr. James Kennedy) who have called for Jeb to step forward - despite Judge Greer's injunctions - and take action to save Terri Schiavo from a judicially-decreed death.
Hugh was going on about the "rule of law" and quoting the old chestnut from "Man for All Seasons," about how if we tear down the laws to get at the devil, we have nothing to defend ourselves when he turns on us.
But Hugh doesn't get it: IT's the ACTIVIST JUDGES who've ALREADY TORN DOWN THE LAWS. For some politician to stand up to a lawless judiciary would be a stand FOR the "rule of law," not against it.
We have a crisis of governance in this country, with judges taking seizing tyrannical power. Tthey're able to act as tyrants only because elected officials won't stand up to them. IF THERE WAS EVER AN OCCASION THAT WOULD PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TURN THE TIDE - FOR AN ELECTED OFFICIAL TO SAY "NUTS" TO A DICTATORIAL JUDICIARY - IT IS NOW, WHEN THE TINPOINT JUDGE GREER, A HICK COUNTY JUDGE SWOLLEN WITH ARROGANCE HAS ORDERED AN INNOCENT WOMAN KILLED SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE'S dISABLED.
There are constitutional and statutory provisions enough for Jeb to rely on, as chief executive authority of Florida, to act to save this woman.
Hugh Hewitt, with all his civics lecturing -- taking the issue away from the life or death realities of this crisis -- forgot to mention some important historical precedents: Lincoln refused to obey the Dredd Scott (pro slavery decision); Andrew JAckson scoffed at what he considered an illegal order of Chief Justice John Marshall; Thomas Jefferson affirmed that EACH BRANCH of government has an independent DUTY to interpret and UPHOLD the constitution;;; and DWIGHT EISENHOWER SENT TROOPS TO CLINTON'S ARKANSAS (clinton was a kidk, of course)., when local politicians AND LOCAL JUDGES WERE IMPOSING SEGREGATIONIST LAWS, DENYING BLACKS THEIR RIGHTS TO EQUAL PROTECTION - i.e TO GO TO UNIVERSITY.
The showdown with arrogant judiciary has to happen at some point: Destiny has asked Jeb to be the hero for free government, and to take a stand. Hugh Hewitt counsels passivity: Let's hope Jeb finds the counsels of conscience to be louder and more persuasive!
Terri is bleeding by the tongue. Jeb Bush, Hugh Hewitt and the rest of should say "NO MORE!" to Mr. Greer, the judicial mediocrity who has ordered that torture.
You're right, and the calls for anarchy right here on FR is disturbing.
pro life movement is not equal to Randall A. Terry
The above is the only thing I added in private in addition to reposting to you privately post # 124. I think you are too emotional to be reading stuff correctly. First, you go maniac claiming that I worte what you posted and now in reply to the identical post[#124] in public and private [cept for the line above], you act like a maniac calling me out for supposedly "whining". You've got a wierd game.
Give it a rest and go to bed. You aren't even trying.
Obviously that's not true, and since it's the assumption on which you base everything else you say, your hold post doesn't hold water.
The only anarchists in this scenario are the judges who are ignoring Florida law that requires "clear and convincing" evidence that a patient wants to be destroyed, before giving an order to that effect. Since it's the judges who are breaking the law, those of us who are urging Jeb to do his constitutional duty and save this woman's life, are supporters of the RULE OF LAW.
You are correct, of course, but there are many freepers who will tell you that the Governor taking action would make this into a "police state." I haven't heard any explanations yet about why it isn't already a police state when the judges are the ones giving the orders.
That means the whole issue will be dropped soon - since it's been determined to be a liability for Jeb and his brother. There will NOT be any of the "investigations" that some freepers hopefully predict. Neither state nor federal officials are going to launch inquiries that could keep this wholly sorry episode in the public consciousness -- and would embarrass the Bushes if dirt turned up that indicated there was corruption behind Greer's killing of Terri, because then Jeb would look even worse for not saving her. NO INVESTIGATIONS WILL BE FORTHCOMING. COUNT ON IT. AND COUNT ON A LOT OF TALK HOSTS TO QUICKLY CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
Make that CYA mode.
You said in post #84:
"I see, your view is "String him up now and don't ask questions." I see..."
Those are entirely your words, and an inference that I take no credit for. If beating on your own straw man amuses you, go for it.
I can't control what you infer.
I was referring to a characterization, which may be validated by consensus or not. That is all I stand by.
Your emotional "string him up", off-the-wall translation is something you will have to unravel all by yourself.
That is a separate issue altogether, which I have not addressed at all on this thread.
It matters little, either way. By the time the next election rolls around, not one person in fifty will remember any of this.
That's certainly what the politicians hope. And they're probably right. But, in order to speed the public's forgetting, it's important that there NOT be any investigations. So there won't be. The cremation will happen, the various parties to the kill will cash whatever checks might be coming their way, the Schindlers will grieve, and Pinellas County will go back to its more normal, out-of-the-limeligh cycles of venality and corruption. (Oh, and Greer will be honored at bar association and civil liberties banquets year in and year out).
ontos-on wrote:
Do you think that an executive is permitted under our constitution to defy a court order in a specific case?
Is everything up for grabs as to the executive's whim?
______________________________________
The Chief Executive of a State, [or of the Nation,] has a sworn duty to support the US Constitution.
Marshall, in his 1803 Marbury decision, - put it well. He wrote:
" --- By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. ----
--- But when the legislature proceeds to impose on that officer other duties; when he is directed peremptorily to perform certain acts; when the rights of individuals are dependent on the performance of those acts; he is so far the officer of the law; is amenable to the laws for his conduct; and cannot at his discretion sport away the vested rights of others. --- "
In Marbury vs Madison Jefferson Saw the Beginning of Judicial Tyranny
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368285/posts
I disagree with you. The judges seem to be (at least to me) following the very letter of the law, all the while disregarding the spirit of the law. To their shame, they hide behind every dotted i and crossed t while they disregard the actual effect of what they are doing.
The fix to this horrible situation begins at the level of or representatives in Congress, not with a lawless citizenry.
Asking for "facts" on which to base either is mindless and pointless.
The above was the post of yours [#50] that I responded to originally. You posted this in reponse to my asking farmer18th what facts he had for calling Hugh Hewitt a coward and that he always had been. Farmer18th's post # ___ says that "Hugh is a coward. He always has been."
In response to me asking farmer18th what facts he had, you posted the above nonsense that "cowardice is a value judgment" Yeah, it indeed is, but such a judgment has to be based on facts and can be evaluated as to whether the facts reveal cowardice or not.
[Just like I now have a value judgment that you are a hothead who posts before he thinks, and that judgment is based upon certain "facts",namely: your posts in this thread--My other inference is that you must have not gotten enough on the schoolyard and are trying to make up for it now by injecting a tough guy personna needlessly.]
.... and when someone expresses the judgment that someone is a coward it is reasonable to ask what that judgment is based on. That is, what facts is it based on.
But your main point that I was responding to was your silly claim that
Asking for "facts" on which to base either [judgments of cowardice or favorite color] is mindless and pointless.
So your ultimate foolishness is your original assumption that having a favorite color---admittedly subjective and not up for debate-- is somehow similar ot judging someone a "coward". Being a coward is failing to have the necessary courage to meet opposition, danger or difficulty. It is actually an objective state about which there may be differing opinions, but those different opinions should be required to state their evidences for their claim.
You seemed to fall into the error that judging cowardice or not is like a taste and totally subjective and not open to inquiry or debate. You were wrong about this. But that did not stop you from calling me---who only asked another Freeper what were the evidence or facts for calling Hewitt a coward--someone who was mindless.
Asking for "facts" on which to base either is mindless and pointless.
Your error about cowardice is an important error because it leads people such as you to think that they can vent and attack and call people names, without reasons or facts, but just because you feel like doing so --[same as "feeling" like you like chocolate or blue].
BTW, you might consider reading the dialog of Plato called Laches, since the topic is courage and cowardice. It could help you clear your mind about this stuff.
Now, do you understand?
Thanks for your post. It is too late tonight, but i wil definitely read your link about Jefferson and judicial tyrrany. I would note that the quote from Marshall did not speak about the Executive vis a vis the Judiciary in a specific case, as when a judge issues a court order. But I will be very interested in looking in to this again.
Well, I disagree with you --- but I like your freeper handle! And I won't call you a balding liar!
Thanks for the complement on my Freeper handle.
I'm interested in your reaction to my assertion that the judges are in fact following the very letter of the law. I'm not an attorney, so my conclusions are based on listening to Rush and others, and reading various posts here at FR.
As far as I can tell, the judges have every technicality covered.
I have more to say, but I'd like to hear your reaction to that first.
Here's where Greer was "shockingly" wrong - as a Florida International University law professor wrote in the Miami Herald: Florida law requires that, in order to allow withholding of feed tube from a PVS patient where there is dispute over his/her wishes, there must be "clear and convincing" evidence that she would want to have it pulled. there isn't ANYTHING approaching "clear and convincing" evidence that Terri would want her feeding tube pulled. So Greer essentially invented his own law - - and minimalist standard that allows people to kill her without knowing her intentions, as the law requires. This is an illegaility on Greer's part, and the appellate courts upheld him because they're routinely very deferential to "factual findings" of trial courts.
OK you win. You are right.
Now go away.
Beat that poor dead horse to a pulp.
Thank you for your amateur pop-psych, too, but keep your day job.
As for your red herrings? Dream on. I started with the pre-Socratic philosophers; in the original Greek.
It's been lovely, but sophistry bores me. I'm done here.
Ta ta.
He has constitutional power, but he blustered then hesitated and he was toast. He is not a bad guy, just weak like most Pubbies. Lots of blustering then they head for the tall grass. The pro-life movement won't be too hard on him but they may stay home from elections (a real tragedy), seeing that all their efforts come to naught. The people want clarity but judges give them mumbo jumbo reasons why they can starve someone to death, at least Socrates took his poison, Terri got nothing but neglect from our educated practitioners of the legal (lethal) arts.
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.