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.
No thanks, Hugh, I don't want to hear any more from the Sanhedrin and their lackies.
OK, let's start there. Whose duty is it to rein in Greer? I'm not familiar with FL. but I imagine it's probably up to the state legislature to do so.
It can be argued (successfully I'm sure) that they don't have the political will to do something that has never been done before. That's no reason to call for further lawbreaking by anyone. Especially not those otherwise committed to upholding the spirit of the law. That would simply corrupt the only good guys we have.
The solution is to change the hearts and minds of the voters, as is happening in Roe v Wade.
"Make that CYA mode."
Yeah, correct it right after I figured out what CWA meant.
Well, a nice phrase about "changing the hearts" when you are thoroughly beaten and ready to submit to judicial tyranny. Changing hearts makes no difference in the courts, unless the Executive and Legislative branches re-establish themselves we are lost, but what the heck we have had a corrupt judiciary for 40 years so what is another 50 years of slavery? The main thing is that we all go along to get along.
Boy, you are right about Hugh, he has a focus on bringing the mumbo jumbo guys on. They all miss the point that it is not OK to starve someone to death. I just heard another of the great legal minds tell me that Terri had her day in court and everything that could be done was done and now the courts can starve her. What planet are these legal nuts on?
What laws should they break? Just those relating to situations like Terri's?
And how are you going to keep them from breaking more than just those? An oath perhaps? They've already sworn an oath. If they can break that oath, how are you going to keep them from breaking the new oath?
What system would be put in place to enforce those oaths, a new justice system? Or would we just have a king who determined which of the 'old' laws we disregard and which must still be obeyed? Or would it just be 'everyman for himself'?
Stop with the "breaking of laws" nonsense, we all break laws, the politicians break laws, the courts break all kinds of laws, there is "no rule of law". Perhaps you could argue we have a selective law enforcement system some broken laws get attention most do not. The imperial liberal courts are the nearest thing to complete tyranny. The most commonly broken thing a politician does is ten minutes after reciting he will defend the constitution is to beat a hasty retreat into "the constitution is a living breathing document". We are unraveling because of attorneys. How do I know you are obeying every law anyway? Ignorance is no excuse now, have you read this years 16,000 pages of new laws to be sure you are clean as the driven snow.????
"mumbo, jumbo . . . "
They're from the land of the think tanks, the law professoring, and others who have never strayed far from a public or private trough. HH is a Rockefeller Republican at best who thinks his radio audience should be as captive as his con law class. Go out a work to elect good judges he says. You, not him. Anyway, elected judges for all practical purposes enjoy lifetime tenure like federal judges because they're rarely opposed when they come up for reelection for a host of reasons, some lawyers would have to take a pay cut, others are suck-ups, some could never get bar support because they've advocated too zealously, some think the job would be boring, etc. As for federal judges, that's happened only a few times and isn't worth discussing.
s/b As for [impeaching] federal judges, . . .
And because we all break laws (no argument from me there) we have implicit permission to purposely set about doing whatever it takes to save Terri or others in her situation?
My previous questions stand. How do we set limits to peoples behavior under this new and enlightend system of government you are proposing? Or is it just 'every man for himself'?
We have an ongoing example of just how well that works. Just look at our border situation.
Gov. Bush is a sitting duck for the partisan haters. He's damned if he rescues her ("He thumbed his nose at the law!") and damned if he doesn't ("He did nothing to save her!") This situation has turned into a spin circus.
Since we agree the system is broken and failing us, the executive must reassert itself and the legislative also. Curbing jurisdiction, abolishing circuits is a start, but nothing will happen. That is the bottom line. The judiciary will get stronger and the other co-equal branches will be finished. Judicial chaos will reign or anarchy. Take your pick. My crystal ball does not look good.
Your story has become tiresome.
I'm more optimistic than you regarding the outcome of judicial tyranny.
We have, as a tool, one of the greatest documents ever written in the history of mankind. The Constitution. It's second in greatness only to the Holy Bible.
We also have a citizenry that is self-selected from around the world. Only the best, the brightest, and most determined, arrive on our shores. Every other country has to make do with the left-overs.
It's now up to the best, the brightest and most determined people in the world to use the greatest tool in the world (our Constitution) to overturn this encroaching tyranny.
It's been done before (1776), and I'm confident it will be done again.
There are countless signs of hope, our home schooled children being but one bright one, Mark Levin's book 'Men in Black' being another, and we must not 'spoil the broth' by falling prey to the easy (but false) solution of anarchy. Anarchy is not the answer to tyranny.
These are flowery words, no doubt, but the solution is there, and I'm confident that the next decades will see them being implemented.
Terri's death (if that's how this turns out) will not be in vain.
Glad you are optimistic, but you have no Constitution. You have 9 political appointees that get to tell you what the Constitution says. The clearly written words have been neutered by agenda driven judges. Clearly worded documents like the Constitution protect you not at all. The good guys desperately need some judges on their payroll, the left has lots already. This is a game to the death and we are losing.
Some, like Hugh, speak about reforming the predicament through legislation. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!! Their actions are rendered mute time and again. Even HH has said that Marbury vs Madison has made the "Men in Black" above all other branches. Passing legislation is about as effective a remedy as spinning on your thumbs -- except the latter renders a quicker resolution.
Under our judicial system it is the Florida Supreme Court, the US Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court's job to reign in any local judge.
Greer's rulings have been affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court, the US Court of Appeals and by its refusal to take the case, by the US Supreme Court.
Legislative bodies can pass laws which the judicial branch can find to be unconstitutional. Remember the line item veto to reign in federal spending? Found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Under our judicial system arrogant imperial system it is the Florida Supreme Court, the US Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court's job to reign in any local judge affirm the superior standing of the Sanhedrin and kiss-ass scribe lawyers over the unwashed masses.
Yes, andn the smugness of the professor who was pushing this line was all the more disturbing because the Socrates analogy doesn't hold; he was pushing a illogical analogy -- showing that he doesn't think that clearly -- and talking down to us at the same time, as if he's on some higher level of understanding. You can't compare accepting one's own death (which Socrates did) with standing passively by while ANOTHER is killed -- which is what the professor was identifying as the lesson of Socrates. I don't know anywhere in the Platonic dialogues where Socrates tells people that they have to be so in awe of the powers that be, that they can't take a stand (even to the point of civil disobedience) for the lives of others.
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.