Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jeb Bush: I'd love to help, but I can't
WorldNetDaily ^ | March 27, 2005 | WorldNetDaily.com

Posted on 03/28/2005 8:02:29 AM PST by FR_addict

Florida governor says he doesn't have power from Constitution to intervene

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the man said to be the last hope for Terri Schiavo, says he's powerless to help the brain-injured woman who has been without nourishment for more than nine full days.

"I cannot violate a court order," Bush told CNN following Easter church services. "I don't have powers from the United States Constitution or – for that matter from the Florida Constitution – that would allow me to intervene after a decision has been made."

To Terri's parents, Bush said, "I can't. I'd love to, but I can't."

Speaking to the media for the first time in three days, the governor added, "I'm sad that she's in the situation that she's in. I feel bad for her family. My heart goes out to the Schindlers and, for that matter, to [her husband] Michael," Bush said. "This has not been an easy thing for any, any member of the family. But most particularly for Terri Schiavo."

Meanwhile, protests have continued outside the hospice where Terri is being cared for. With security having been doubled, five people were taken into custody as pastors tried to bring Schiavo Easter communion.

A handful of people in wheelchairs got out of them and shouted, "We're not dead yet!" as they lay in the driveway.

Larry Klayman, founder of the legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, said Bush has the power to grant her clemency, just as he would in a death-row case.

"We're asking the governor for a stay of execution on Easter Sunday, a day of mercy,'' Klayman said. "For Jeb Bush not to act would be a dereliction of his duty to the people of the state of Florida.''

Terri has been the subject of worldwide attention since Florida Judge George Greer ordered her feeding tube removed March 18, and courts have upheld his decision not to have the tube reinserted.

An attorney for Terri's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, painted a grim picture of the situation on CBS' "Face the Nation."

"Terri is declining rapidly," Schindler attorney David Gibbs said. "We believe at this point she has passed where physically she would be able to recover."

But Randall Terry, a pro-life activist speaking for Terri's parents, called Gibbs' description "absolutely untrue."

George Felos, the attorney for Michael Schiavo says Terri's breathing has been regular, and her death does not appear imminent. He told reporters her remains would be cremated and buried in a family plot in Pennsylvania.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: allterri; allthetime; bush; bushsucks; bushwasheshishands; frdeathcultists; insaneterribots; jeb; jebbush; klaymanklown; pontiuspilate; schiavo; schindler; smearjeb; terri; terri247; terripalooza
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400401-402 next last
To: MHGinTN

Dear MHGinTN,

Extremely well-put. I wish I coulda said it as well.


sitetest


361 posted on 03/28/2005 2:44:25 PM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt
The question which I answered was quoted above my answer

Actually it wasn't. But I can see there's no discussion with you, just invective directed at me because of problems you have w/ others on the thread. *shrug* Whatever. Bu'bye! (don't waste time replying as it will not be read, I prefer honest discussion not your silly ass-kickin' cowboy routine).

362 posted on 03/28/2005 2:46:02 PM PST by workerbee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: Mad Mammoth
Isn't it time you tried to rid yourself of a masochistic streak like that?

Isn't it time you tried to be constructive, in order to secure your place as a planted disruptor?

363 posted on 03/28/2005 2:46:38 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: workerbee

Hummm, I thought I gave you a reasonable answer. Whatever ...


364 posted on 03/28/2005 2:47:58 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Well said MHGinTN, well said indeed. This whole 'rule of law' gambit is the ideological cousin of 'I was only following orders' and we all know where we saw that displayed for the entire world to see, the results were 6+ million dead in World War II concentration camps. Naturally, the pro-death crowd will seek to smear and discredit anyone who makes the link between the state-sponsored genocide of the Nazis, and the latter day state-sponsored infanticide of unborn children, the extermination of the elderly, the infirm and the disabled (and hey, "euthanasia" sounds like such a friendly word, like "Youth In Asia", right? Let's all contribute to help the cause of "Youth In Asia", shall we?)

The murder of Terri Schiavo will go down in the history books as the 21st century version of Roe v Wade, and we can expect even greater carnage to take place, all of it wrapped in faux arguments of 'Death with Dignity' and 'The Right to Die', this is a truly Orwellian twisting of words that will only become more extreme.

Wait and see.
365 posted on 03/28/2005 2:47:58 PM PST by Mad Mammoth (Every Marine I ever knew had unlimited respect for human life. Except for this one guy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt
Isn't it time you tried to be constructive, in order to secure your place as a planted disruptor?

See my reply to MHGinTN.

By the way, wouldn't it be a whole lot easier for you to just copy and paste the phrase
"I know you are but what am I?" instead of just endlessly labeling everyone you disagree with a 'disruptor'?

Check it out Sparky, I got your disruptor

>>>right here<<<.
366 posted on 03/28/2005 2:51:56 PM PST by Mad Mammoth (Every Marine I ever knew had unlimited respect for human life. Except for this one guy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: Mad Mammoth

Not too creative there, MM.


367 posted on 03/28/2005 2:55:33 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt
Not too creative there, MM.

That's all you rate Grunt.
368 posted on 03/28/2005 2:57:02 PM PST by Mad Mammoth (Every Marine I ever knew had unlimited respect for human life. Except for this one guy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: Mad Mammoth

Thanks, disruptor.


369 posted on 03/28/2005 2:58:18 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt

You're welcome.

Do you prefer 'Grunt' or 'agitprop'?

Personally, I think 'agitprop' is a bit too sophisticated for you, you're familiar with that term are you not?

I think 'Grunt' fits you much better. Good choice for a handle.


370 posted on 03/28/2005 3:02:03 PM PST by Mad Mammoth (Every Marine I ever knew had unlimited respect for human life. Except for this one guy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: Mad Mammoth
I prefer 'grunt', with a diminutive 'g', in attempt at humility.

And you still are inviting division. Can't stop, can you?

371 posted on 03/28/2005 3:04:30 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn
My "small thought" comment was triggered by your stated wish in post 5 that Kerry would have won the Presidency.

Now that you expounded further, I see that I was correct.

Your whole focus is Terri. That's a very small thought. This is far, far larger than just her. Hundreds of thousands have died in defense of our country and Constitution, and it is important that we honor their deaths through the continued observance of the law and order society they willing gave their very lives to protect.

We are at the very beginning of what will be a decade’s long battle. Many more Terri Shavio's will die before the battle is even fully engaged.

She is dying because of judicial tyranny. Anarchy is not the answer to tyranny. An enraged populace forcing a reluctant Congress to do their duty is.

One final comment: you posted "The Bush boys do not have the steel their father had. " who are you trying to bamboozle here?

You mean the "read my lips, no new taxes" Bush who caved to the Liberal lies and raised taxes? Or do you mean the Bush who allowed the UN to call some critical shots in Gulf War I and let Saddam live? That Steely George Bush? Give me an ever lovin' break.

372 posted on 03/28/2005 3:06:09 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (God has blessed Republicans with really stupid enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt
I prefer 'grunt', with a diminutive 'g', in attempt at humility.

Little 'g' it is.

And you still are inviting division. Can't stop, can you?


I haven't invitied division, multiplication, subtraction OR addition, I am prepared to be as civil to you as you're capable of being to me or any other poster.

Your move.
373 posted on 03/28/2005 3:13:42 PM PST by Mad Mammoth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: Mad Mammoth
... I am prepared to be as civil to you as you're capable of being to me or any other poster.

Your move.

Here's my move; I am prepared to be as civil to you as you're capable of being to me or any other poster.

Deal

374 posted on 03/28/2005 3:16:05 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

Sitetest,

I agree with much of what you wrote concerning the problems in judicial temperament.

Although I do agree that either President or Governor Bush should intervene in the Schiavo case, I think that the grounds for doing so should be very narrow: that a citizen's life is being deprived under extraordinary circumstances where there is considerable question about her medical condition and desires. All of the other cases cited to, such as Elian Gonzales for instance, do not have the same urgency as this case, because there was not literal, immediate life or death at stake. Our whole system recognizes that death is "different", which is why there is such an extraordinary set of appeals and reviews in death penalty cases, and why there is an executive override of the legal process in death penalty cases through the pardon. I think that on the narrow facts of clearly disputed "right to die"/right to live cases, the results of getting it wrong are so severe that an executive override is needed in favor of life (but not in the other direction, just as the Governor cannot order the execution of someone sentenced to a prison term).

To establish that precedent, and to save Terri Schiavo's life, would require a chief executive, preferably the state Governor, to take executive action that would lead to a confrontation with the judiciary in this case.

The precedent I would want to see established by Jeb Bush (or failing him, the President, on Federal rights grounds) would be narrow, and pertain to cases like this. Of course having done that, the precedent WOULD be set for other executive overrides, but I think that this sort of thing will only be acceptable to the People in general if it is limited practically to the facts of this case: a person who cannot communicate, whose wishes are not clearly stated, and over whom there is great family dissension.

You want to press farther, and use this case to establish what I'll call the "Andrew Jackson Principle" of Executive override of the Judiciary on the Executive's own initiative. I do not favor such a move except on the narrow facts of life or death.

You wrote a thoughtful piece, and therefore deserve a thoughtful response.

The problem in the Terry Schiavo case, like abortion, is that an innocent life is snuffed out. Under THOSE circumstances, I am willing to see extraordinary executive powers asserted to preserve life. As in a criminal pardon, the Legislature speaks, the Judiciary speaks, but the Executive can, for whatever reason, choose to override all of that process with clemency. As a Catholic who believes in the sanctity of life, fears the execution of the innocent, and accepts the Church's teaching that the death penalty is not truly necessary in an advanced, modern state, if I were the Governor of a state, equipped with the pardon power, I would very likely execute it to commute nearly all death sentences that came before me to life in prison without parole. I would not do this by subterfuge. The death penalty is a serious moral issue for me, and as an obedient Catholic, the electorate deserves to know that, when empowered with the discretion of the Executive in death penalty cases, I am going to use that discretion to preserve life in practically every case. My moral beliefs trump the law, obviously, because we are only under the law of man for a short time, but we are answerable to God for all eternity for what we do under the laws of man. Given my convictions on the death penalty, there would not be much of a defense were I to stand before my creator and try to argue that I was "Just following orders" when I already knew clearly that those orders needed to be superseded by the Divine Law.

For those very reasons, assuming I had any political appeal at all to anyone, I would be very unlikely to ever be elected Governor in a death penalty state, even as a Republican, because I would make it plain beforehand that I oppose the death penalty on moral grounds - because life is sacred - and that if you entrust me with the power to commute sentences, I will do so in death penalty cases as a matter of moral principle.

Executives are entrusted with vast discretionary powers, but not unlimited. This is my problem with your suggestion that the Schiavo case be used to make a GENERAL stand against judicial overreach by establishing an Executive Override, to go along with a Legislative Override. Taking the unique power of executive discretion in a life-and-death case and extending it as a general rule strikes me as a dangerous precedent.

The problem is that the Executive already has enormous power. If the President or a Governor starts to defy the Courts, asserting equal power to interpret the Constitution, there are only two real checks on that: impeachment and the ballot box. Impeachment is almost as hard as getting a constitutional amendment through Congress. The ballot box comes infrequently, and there are some overrides of Judical policies that might be very popular indeed, though wrong. The example that comes to mind is Andrew Jackson's use of Presidential override to accomplish the genocidal Cherokee Trail of Tears against court orders upholding the treaties.

Anyway, you still end up with the problem of abuse of discretion, which is where we stand with the Judiciary as it is. At least with the judges, there are many levels and jurisdictions, and judges can often be pitted against judges. Even on the Supreme Court, there are nine, and you need five. With the Executive, all roads lead to Rome, so to speak, and executive override is vested in the man with the greatest political interest to override EVERY opinion he disagrees with.

Much like the courts abused the hell out of the Commerce Clause, once they discovered its power in the 1930s, an Executive who felt he had the override power would routinely use it every time something crucial and political was at stake.

The same problem, more or less, occurs with Legislative Override, although the legislature, being more diffuse, is less prone to the sort of consistent imperial overreach in the service of a singular political goal as the Executive.

And really, giving the Congress or the President such an override as a precedent which could be (and therefore WOULD be) used routinely doesn't really SOLVE the problem of imperial overreach by the government. RIGHT NOW we're concentrating on the Judiciary, because since Griswold v. Connecticut - a popular case of Judicial Override of the legislature that most people AGREED (and agree with) (Query: should the state legislature be able to make the use of birth control by married couples the equivalent of shooting up with heroin: illegal, and punishable by fines or prison? Most people don't think so, but the legislatures passed those laws against birth control. Most people think the Court acted rightly. Another case: query: should the legislature be able to make it ILLEGAL for the Catholics to operate their own schools? At the turn of the last century, many strongly Protestant states did so by very popular statutes, which were summarily overridden by the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds) - and Roe v. Wade, we've entered an age of imperial judicial power blatantly legislating from the bench. Bush v. Gore was another classic case.
The Judiciary took a long time to get up this head of steam. Now, no doubt, it needs to be reigned in.

But how?

The Executive Override option, generally proposed here, offers the prospect of the nightmare of a headstrong Executive using it as aggressively as the Courts have, but without the procedural delays or requirements of collegiality.

Really, you're just shoving discretionary power into a different branch.

Take the Schiavo case. Were I the Governor, I would indeed save her life. But the identical argument of the preservation of innocent life leads directly to the assertion of state, or federal power were I President, to forcibly close all abortion clinics and protect all babies facing abortion. I desire to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade not by saying that the death of innocent babies is a matter for democracy to decide: it is NOT! But rather, by declaring that equal protection and due process categorically forbid all abortion, as a constitutional principle, except to save the life of the mother. I don't believe that democracy has the power to empower the state to kill the innocent EVER, and were I the Chief Executive with the precedent of Executive Override, I would use force to stop abortion on constitutional principle. I would be completely deaf to the democratic arguments too. Democracy, the People, have no right nor power to determine the deaths of other innocent people. By my interpretation of the Constitution, there is no right to murder. Murder is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, abortion is not something that the democracy, the People, the courts or the Legislature have any power to vote on, any more than people have the right to conduct a "Lottery" every year to see who will be stoned.

That's the problem with any override. Of the three branches of government to possess, the Judiciary is the least dangerous, because it has no enforcement power, and CAN be ignored in extremis. Obviously I think that life or death, as in Terri's case, is "in extremis" and that the court should be ignored, but I want to limit any executive or legislative override to the facts of this sort of case.

The more general principle, it seems to me, doesn't solve the problem, but just moves the power of imperiousness to actors more capable of more ruthless exploitation of it than judges.

Executives should be able to pardon people, and to stop anybody from being killed in their jurisdictions. But their override powers shouldn't go past that, methinks. Clearly I distinguish between life and everything else as the distinction between the sacred and the mundane. Just as clearly, the distinction I make would only limit an executive for as long as some like-minded person was in office.

When I spin out the way that such powers would be used in general, I return to the view that, in the end, the Judiciary really does need to be the final arbiter of conflicts. The Executive with the power of override would rapidly become more dangerous than the Judiciary ever has been. The Legislature would be a little better, but not much. "We overrule the Court on..." Where is the limitation on that?

In the end, since we do need an arbiter, and the Courts are the least dangerous option, I think that the issue has to be to get as many judges as possible who have thought through the issue, and who accept the principle of judicial self-restraint to some theory. Strict Constructionism is not the most pro-life position around (it would, effectively, return abortion to the democracy, and then we'd have Massachusetts allowing abortion on demand until birth), but it's better than the current liberal agenda legislated from the bench "whatever it takes" approach. Clearly my preference would be a two tiered "Life is sacred" natural law approach, in which matters of life and death would receive greater scrutiny, with strict constructionism for everything else. This, I believe, accords most with God's law, and is likely to be the safest belief system.

But that is too nuanced, and frankly too religious for our political system to bear.

Get strict constructionists on the judiciary, and you've got the best shot of self-limiting judges (when they are in the majority), and conservatives restraining liberals (when they are more evenly balanced).

The problem with a general principle of Executive Override is also that there is no particular principle by which the Executive cannot ALSO override the Legislature. Etc.

Anyway, in the particular Schiavo case, the best solution would be for some Federal Judge to step forward now and grant an injunction to install the tube. If he won't, Jeb Bush should act. If he won't, the President should act. And the narrow principle the executive or judicial intervention should that we are dealing with a life-or-death matter requiring immediate intervention. Death is different. We all know that. We can narrow the use of authority, therefore, to death cases because of the peculiar issues surrounding death. I don't think that blending life-and-death issues with mundane power issues is wise. Life is sacred. Money, power and property are not.


375 posted on 03/28/2005 3:48:59 PM PST by Vicomte13 (Tibikak ishkwata!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt
Here's my move; I am prepared to be as civil to you as you're capable of being to me or any other poster.
Deal


((( shaking hand )))

Maybe we can start fresh here, eh?

First of all, please understand that I am not here on FR to disrupt a damn thing. If you were to go back to my earliest posts on FR when I arrived here late last year (I was a former L.Com member), you will see that I have stood behind and supported President Bush (and Governor Bush too, as I am a Floridian) and although I have not always agreed with GWB's decisions or policies, I have always believed that he was upholding his oath of office to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution of the United States.

Now this Terri Schiavo issue may be framed by some as 'no big deal' but I see it as something much larger than the death of a disabled woman. That death is tragic, unnecessary and it was brought about by a judge in Florida who gave an order that was in contradiction to Florida Statute law, very likely in violation of federal law (Americans with Disabilities Act), and based upon heresay evidence from the husband/guardian, evidence which was not remembered until after 7 years from Terri's alleged accident.

The Florida judicial system upheld Greer, that is true. But that does not automatically equate to meaning that Greer was correct. The Congress got involved on the basis that Terri Schiavo should at LEAST be entitled to the same provisions of review that any death row inmate is provided prior to their execution. The bill that got passed on Palm Sunday directed the federal courts to conduct a NEW review, not just to flip through the pages of the case as it existed after the Florida system had rubber stamped it, but to actually conduct a new review, a trial if you will, of the particulars of the case which would have meant accepting new testimony, new evidence, affadavits from all parties involved, and only after such a review would it be possible to validate Judge Greer's decisions. The fact is, Greer is only a probate judge, with very little experience in the area of making life and death decisions, and his performance in this case has been overwhelmingly in favor of each and every motion presented to him by Michael Schiavo via his attorney George Felos. There is not even the slightest appearance of impartiality. Any contradictory testimony or evidence has been rejected and denied outright. That alone should be setting off alarm bells. And the rush to cremate Terri Schiavo's body after she dies? That too, raises questions of whether or not Greer, Felos and Michael Schiavo are attempting to hide something. Even if one maintains that there is nothing fishy going on, there should in that case be no objection to a review of the circumstances both before and after Terri Schiavo dies. She has been sentenced to death, because Judge Greer's order did not only state that the feeding tube was to be removed, it stated that she was not permitted to be given any 'hydration or nutrition' whatsoever, i.e., she was to be dehydrated/starved until she is DEAD.

That alone is a violation of the United States Constitution which bars cruel and unusual punishment. Any death row inmate which received a sentence of 'death by dehydration/starvation' would not only be automatically granted an appeals hearing before a federal court, they would most likely have grounds for a brand new trial.

But having said plenty about the 'micro' end of the issue (Terri Schiavo), the 'macro' end of the issue is what many people are missing: because Terri Schiavo's rights under the U.S. Constitution have been violated (cruel and unusual punishment, no due process), there was an obligation on the part of the legislative and executive branches both in Tallahassee and in Washington D.C. to take whatever action was necessary to rescue Terri Schiavo from a situation which will result in her unjustified death. She has not been on life support, she has been capable of maintaining her bodily functions of heart rate, pulse, blood pressure, renal function, etc.

Unfortunately, the only thing that happened at the legislative and executive branch level was to draft, debate, pass and sign into law a measure which depended upon the very judicial process which had already failed to guarantee the Constitutional rights of Terri Schiavo. And the results were predictable: Judge Whittemore in Tampa says 'no'. A 3-judge panel in Atlanta says 'no'. The entire 12 judges in Atlanta flat deny a request to hear the appeal en banc. The U.S. Supreme Court does likewise. And the obscenity of this is that the law that was passed by the Congress, signed into law by the President, required that a NEW review of the case be made at the federal court level. The judges in question essentially thumbed their nose at that law, and FAILED TO UPHOLD THE LAW.

That is called 'selective enforcement'.

Now I have quoted the example of President Eisenhower sending federal troops to Little Rock in '57 to prevent black students from being lynched, and it is important to understand why he did that - he did it because the state and local government and law enforcement, from the Governor's office all the way down to the city police, were working to circumvent and to defy the law of the land, and the Constitution of the United States. Eisenhower would have been derelict in his duties if he had NOT sent those troops, because the Constitution had clearly broken down in Little Rock, and had Ike not acted, the executive branch would have been effectively surrendering both legal and moral authority to the racists and segregationists who infested the government offices of Arkansas from top to bottom.

Our system is based upon having THREE equal branches of government, with checks and balances to keep any branch from overpowering the others. In this case (Schiavo), the legislative branch failed to follow through when faced with the open defiance of Judge Greer, and the executive branch (both at the State and Federal level) failed to act in order to preserve the balance between our three branches of government.

Some will say it makes no difference, that the President is still the President, Congress is still the Congress, etc., but the fact is, the Judiciary has now successfully trumped the other two branches, and the precedent has now been set: any decision(s) made at the executive level are subject to being overturned by the courts, likewise for legislation which is passed by the Congress and signed into law, and while that has in fact been past practice (meaning that the actions of the executive and legislative branches are subject to the courts in the sense that if illegal acts are committed, the courts have the responsibility of addressing such illegalities), now that the Schiavo case has elevated the judiciary over their co-branches of government, it means that the final arbiter will be a judge or judges which are not accountable to the voters, cannot be easily impeached (if at all), and the executive and legislative branches of government are now subservient to the judicial branch.

Our Founding Fathers would be getting their guns off the racks if faced with this kind of judicial tyranny. And make no mistake, it IS tyranny. And while it may sound good, proper and responsible to say that 'changes must be made', any changes that are proposed now can just as easily be discarded by the judiciary for which those changes are intended. We are now faced with a perpetual and self-replicating judicial monster that has consolidated all real political power unto themselves, and that is why it is my opinion that our Republic has all but died, no differently than Terri Schiavo will die, by judicial fiat.

That's my long winded rant for the night. I'm taking a break, because quite frankly: my head hurts.

Regards,

MM
376 posted on 03/28/2005 3:57:38 PM PST by Mad Mammoth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: Mad Mammoth
(((Returns the handshake)))

You've fought hard, rest well and we'll pick it up again later.

I sure know everyone I accuse isn't a disruptor in intent, but in effect so many of us contribute to it. Our strength lies in our unity, and we all need each other, the neo's, the libertarian, the conservative and the religious and all the other wings need to lighten up on each other so that we may possibly come together. We must always leave the door open for our kindred, and ofttimes that door is slammed shut. Later, fellow FReeper.

377 posted on 03/28/2005 4:13:04 PM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

"She is dying because of judicial tyranny. Anarchy is not the answer to tyranny. An enraged populace forcing a reluctant Congress to do their duty is."

How, pray tell, do we 'force' Congress to do diddly-poop in time to save this woman's life?

And then there's the little point that the majority of the amoral, self-involved populace SUPPORTS this atrocity.

Sorry, pal, if this were my daughter being murdered the judge and her husband would already be dead. I would not be having a rhetorical intellectual discussion with anyone about judicial blah, blah, blah. I'd be perfectly willing to off the two of them to keep my daughter alive and then perfectly willing to accept the consequences thereafter.

"LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

When Terri Schiavo breathes her last this government will have become the enemy of the people it is charged to protect. Her life has been illegally ended by a court order without a trial and without a crime having been committed. Scott Peterson, by the way, will spend more time on death row then Terri spent in the hospice.

And more people will be on his side.

The mandate says, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Not, "Life as determined and adjudicated by a braying jackass in a black robe, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Hitler at some point killed his first Jew before he got to six million.

America is killing innocent people and we're just getting warmed up.

The 4.5 million Alzheimers patients are probably next since many of them have brain activity comparable to Terri's which the court has decided means they're "brain dead".

And then there's the mentally retarded.

And then there's the physically handicapped. (Notice you don't see anyone in a wheelchair cheering on Michael Schiavo?)

Yep, we are about to start our own Holocaust right here in America.

You'd better hope that the liberals don't determine conservatism to be an incurable mental disorder as it is in China.

China has a cure for such things:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350794/posts


378 posted on 03/28/2005 4:15:00 PM PST by PeterFinn ("Tolerance" means WE have to tolerate THEM. They can hate us all they want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: Mad Mammoth

Beautifully stated. Well done!


379 posted on 03/28/2005 4:23:41 PM PST by PeterFinn ("Tolerance" means WE have to tolerate THEM. They can hate us all they want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13

Dear Vicomte13,

I appreciate your response.

I don't mean to suggest that the executive should enjoy supremacy, either. I'd prefer more balance between the three branches. I'm almost as worried about a runaway executive as a runaway judiciary.

I'm a little less afraid of a runaway executive because ultimately, we have elections. The executive can be thrown out on his bum. We also have the 22nd Amendment. We can wait out the executive.

But a bad judiciary is like herpes. It never goes away. These pricks are appointed for life. And like cockroaches, there are so damned many of them, we could never keep track of all the ones who'd need to be impeached. If we started impeaching all the judges who should be impeached, the House and Senate would be tied up with impeachments and trials for the rest of the 21st century.

Especially, since the SUPREME COURT told the Senate how it may conduct impeachment trials, forbidding the Senate to use rules that permitted the Senate to conduct its regular business while simultaneously working on impeachment trials.

But there are checks and balances that each can use on th executive. Should the executive try to execute policies that believed by the judiciary to be unconstitutional or against actual law, well, guess what? Congress has the power of the purse.

Let the judiciary make its case in such a way as to persuade that third branch - the legislature, to cut off the funds of the executive. Then, the judiciary gets a say, but it must persuade, not self-righteously demand. It must cooperatate, not send thunderbolts down from its self-worshipping idolatorous Mt. Olympus.

If the president's crimes are egregious enough, and the Supreme Court can make its case elegantly enough, the Congress may even be persuaded to impeach the bastard.

If the executive and the legislature both err, the people can replace them. Let the judiciary make their case to perusade the PEOPLE (gee, what a strange idea in a self-governing society), and ask THEIR JUDGMENT upon the political branches.

But the judiciary will be much more persuasive if it ACTUALLY STICKS TO WHAT'S WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS.

There was a thread around here with a conversation with Justice Scalia, and he talks about "original intent," or interpreting the Constitution and the law by what they actually say, and by what was meant by the words when they were written. He says that no one in the judiciary even pretends that that's what they're doing anymore. He says that what the judges are doing now is substituting their personal judgment for that of the people through their elected representatives, and through the Constitution.

And currently, no one stops them. There is no balance at all. We are all wards of the court. Especially the American nazgul of the Supremely Ridiculous Court.

Folks say, well, you can impeach 'em! Unfortunately, the experience of the United States is that the tool of impeachment is almost never used against judges. It's a nice theory, but in practice, it hasn't worked.

We've had 43 presidents. Two have been impeached (although acquitted in the Senate), and one pretty much resigned because he knew he was getting impeached. That's not quite 7% of presidents. On the other hand, out of the literally thousands and thousands of federal judges we have had over the past 220 years of the Constitution, precisely 13 have been impeached. That works out to a significant digit two or three places to the right of the decimal point.

As statistically rare as impeachment is against presidents, it's almost unheard of against judges.

Folks say, well, Congress can alter their jurisdiction! Well, in this case, Congress, with the agreement of the President, DID alter jurisdiction. And the courts, all the way up to the nazguls of the Satanic Court, ignored the Congress and the President.

These corrupted kings of men BROKE THE LAW. But who will arrest them? No one. The executives in this case are all hat, no cattle. And besides, who would try them?

The judges no longer believe that they have to pay attention to the words of the Constitution. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats. There are SEVEN of 12 Republican-appointed judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, yet, even though we know for sure that one Democrat-appointed judge voted not to murder Terri, even with SEVEN Republican judges, Terri could not gain a majority of that court. That means that at a MAXIMUM, only four of the seven Republicans voted against judicial supremacy, and likely fewer than that.

At the level of the Supreme Nitwits, fully SIX OF NINE were appointed by Republicans. Only two really give a damn about the Constitution. With Justice Rehnquist, it's just a matter that he is predisposed to take the conservative side of many issues. Of the other six, THREE APPOINTED BY REPUBLICANS, they care more about international law and smelling good enough in the presence of all their international jet-set power elites from the tyrannies of Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America to really care about our Constitution.

And the problem is much worse than my words suggest, as there are literally thousands of these vermin, uh, judges, across the country, demanding complete obeisance to their unconstitutional and immoral rule.

The fact is, an overzealous executive can be more readily controlled, through the power of the purse, and through the electoral process. If Congress does not control an out-of-control executive, the people can punish the ones who refused in the next election.

If the executive and the legislature stray too far from where the people are, they can be dealt political defeat. Ask Bill Clinton, Tip O'Neill and friends from 1994.

But, because impeachment is nearly a dead letter, and the judiciary is willing to ignore Article III alterations of jurisdiction, there are no real controls at all over the judiciary.

Thus, the nine mortal men doomed to die, the Supreme Nazguls, are our mortal masters.

May they suffer the same fate as the Witchking and his minions.


sitetest


380 posted on 03/28/2005 4:53:21 PM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400401-402 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson