Hugh is a coward. He always has been. Real men don't listen to spoiled brats.
Why do you say that and what facts do you base it upon?
The gist of yesterday's discussion was that if we don't support the rule of law, all else is lost. In some circumstances I would embrace that approach, but not this time.
The branches of government are either equal or they are not.
To make the absurd statement that "we cannot allow lawlessness to prevail", and then suggest that two of the three branches are "lawless" and the third "untouchable", is where he lost me.
His implication is that the judiciary can not be lawless, and if it is, the other branches of government and all the country's citizens are helpless to remedy it.
Terri Schiavo is not the subject here, she is simply the catalyst that forced things to the boiling point. It can be appropriate, as history has shown us, from time to time to let the judiciary know that they can't usurp the functions of the other branches. Bad move.
Laws are not the end in themselves. When they become so in the minds of the "Men in Black", or their lawyer supporters it is time to remind them.
When all branches of government are perceived to be lawless over a given issue, I see absolutely no reason for the judiciary to claim primacy.
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?
Would you be happier with the the Bill Clinton/Janet Reno approach to the Elian Gonzales case?
Then what?
Hugh is not a coward, and we should be fighting those who are TRULY against us (and Terri).
Which spoiled brats?