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.
Short response: when the "Law is a ass", it should be ignored.
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!
To put it a different way, I can think of dozens of ways I intend to ignore the law in the future, as I have done in the past. The silliest, but clearest illustration is the pond with the "no swimming or boating" sign and the drowning child in it; or even a drowning pet.
Speaking of "suspect in their logic," you're surpassed suspicion and gone straight to out and out lying.
I don't understand how people who look at our military and our police and our firefighters lay down their lives every single day don't understand this.
If Terri CAN be saved, she WILL be saved, but if she is not the fight is not over. Destroying the law would be the end of the battle and evil will have won.
You nailed whining Hugh. I could not have said it better.
Hugh is not a coward, and we should be fighting those who are TRULY against us (and Terri).
Amen. If not now, when?
Just sit and think about that a while.
Me? I reject that notion unconditionally. Otherwise I would find it difficult to argue against thowing children into volcanoes, if that is the law, because not to would be unlawful.
And mindless.
He has always been a proceduralist, an appeaser, a hand-wringing whiner. Any mention of the exeuctive or the legislative branches testing their power against the judiciary makes him poop his pants. Hugh Hewitt has no answer, in this blind support for the judge's version of the law, for the Tea Party, for Rosa Parks, for Cromwell. If he were advising the patriots, their children--us--would be slaves.
Asking for "facts" on which to base either is mindless and pointless.
Hmmm, interesting how ignoring those little laws can build into some pretty big issues, isn't it?
Are you too much a coward to answer my other questions?
Are admitting that you are NOT a "real man" or that you don't have enough information to work with?
Perhaps your definition of "real man" is impaired?
Does it include a willingness to take on heavy handed and ultimately counterproductive tactics to inflate your ego and pound your chest?
Hugh Hewitt had on some professor who cited Socrates drinking the hemlock - showing his obedience to the law even unto death. But accepting death for YOURSELF is one thing. Here we're talking about SOMEBODY ELSE -- Socrates wasn't saying that he'd be fine if the law - or rather a PERVERSION of the law imposed by an out-of-control judge -- killed somebody other than Socrates. Socrates didn't counsel that we stand by impotently - or even respectfully - while a law-destroying judge imposes a death sentence on an innocent woman. The professor's presentation was incredibly smug - given the stakes in the Schiavo situation (literally life and death) -- and incredibly inapt. I was SO disappointed that Hugh spent time pushing this specious analogy in an effort to promote a passive response to Judge Greer's tyranny.
I read on another thread that a DCF team was on the way before Bush gave the press conference, but that some weasel in the Gov's office alerted Greer.
A sad time for us Americans IMHO.
We've seen that the law does not have a respect for the sanctity of life.
We've seen that the constitution does not protect those who others deem unworthy to live.
We've seen the utter arrogance, viciousness of those wanting Terri to die for whatever justification of their prior actions, desires to exert same over others, ignorance or support of the precedents set in place.
We've seen that many in the lawmaking arena do not have the sanctity of life view but instead think some people are expendable by others.
And, we have seen a husband, no longer committed to the marriage since he has a common law wife and children with another woman, allowed to kill that wife with full state support.
Something is really wrong in our society.
Yes, like far too many CA Republicans these days becoming a real pantload!!! Especially Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy!!!
Eisenhour made his worst mistake appointing former CA Governor Earl Warren to the high court and Reagan's was letting Bork get "borked" and appointing law school prof Kennedy to the high court!!!
Or for the legislature, in their capacity as lawmakers?
You have identified the question that must be answered soon. And clearly. Plainly. Unable to generate "penumbras".
In my opinion, the answer is "yes". If it clearly agrees to the plain words of the constitution. There should be little argument about the meaning of every day words.
If it involves straining the meaning of words or creating "penumbras", the justices doing so should be immediately impeached and removed.
If the Constitution is "silent on an issue", the the legislature is preeminent. No judge must any longer be allowed to tell the legislature what they "meant" when they wrote a law.
Period.
Two thoughts:
1. Hewitt called John and Ken ( KFI radio, LA) a " couple of pot bangers". This is because they found and revealed information about illegal immigration.
2. Hewitt accepts the Bureaucratic Motto: " We can't do that".
Bureaucrats are minor politicians. Jeb is a major politician. If you DO SOMETHING, you can be criticized.
It was easier to blame judges.
If that happens, those who turn their backs on the law will be guilty of permitting the death of the thousands who will follow after. It is the LAW that will save them IF we do what is needed to CHANGE the law. It is the law that will permit a review of the actions of these judges, and it is the law that will remove them from the bench if they are guilty of bending the law. It is the law that will be changed to require greater overview of future cases. It is the law that will that judicial over reach is punished ACCORDING TO THE LAW!
But if you destroy the law to save Terri, how will that law ever have enough power to be meaningful ever again?
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.