Jeb Bush: I'd love to help, but I can't

"It is my understanding that there is an organized effort by Dims to pretend to be conservatives and attack the Republican Party (and potential '08 candidates, in particular). Now I stongly doubt any of the people on this thread are such double-agents, but the absurdity of several folks on this position (e.g., the "Jeb's state police should have had a shoot out with the local police" folks) make me wonder."

They are on every Shiavo thread. Crawling out of the woodwork. Makes me wonder too.

btw, love your handle!!

Actually, and amazingly, I find it hard to get that involved in this case, other than erring on the side of stateas' rights and due process. I was suggesting peaceful civil disobedience and arrest by a high profile figure as an honorable (and meaningful) way forward by such high profile figures who would rather not stand by and do nothing.

"My heart goes out to the Schindlers and, for that matter, to [her husband] Michael," [Jeb] Bush said."

I wonder on whose side is Jeb Bush on? Is he on Terri's side and for life, or is he on Michael's side and for death? Or, is he in the middle and simply indifferent?

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

We don’t. This is all but over for Terri.

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

THAT’S a big part of this problem. Remember Roe vs Wade? The left went ahead and forced that on us through the courts. Examine it that situation intellectually, leaving out the terrible act that it endorses. If you look at what that did to the country, it tore it apart. There you can see how acting without the majority of the country behind you, it most likely will backfire, This Shiavo case illustrates an enormous issue, at least as big as abortion, and we can’t afford to have it backfire. We need the country behind us. Not 100%, but certainly more than we have now. When we get that level of public support we can get the Congressmen we need, and force (through public press) the rest to vote to change the system.

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.

Well, if that were my son or daughter, I might do the same. It is much easier to sit here behind a keyboard and type “It’s all over for Terri”. I’ve been through a lot in life, and I kind of know the pain the parents are feeling. I’ll stay here behind the keyboard as long as I can.

I'll add one more thing. The country is now in the hands of the conservatives, not the liberals. The courts and academia still belong to the left. If we play our cards right, cool, calm, and with assurance, we will prevail.

You may be interested in looking at this too.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1371247/posts?page=232#232

My reply is #233

Dear Balding_Eagle,

"The courts and academia still belong to the left."

Well, not quite.

A majority federal judges in the United States were appointed by Republicans.

Six out of nine of the Supreme Court, seven out of 12 of the 11th Circuit Appeals Court, which turned down Terri's appeal, and most of the federal district court judges in the US.

Doesn't seem to have done much good.

sitetest

!

A majority federal judges in the United States were appointed by Republicans.

Like he said, the courts and academia still belong to the left.

A majority federal judges in the United States were appointed by Republicans.
Six out of nine of the Supreme Court, seven out of 12 of the 11th Circuit Appeals Court, which turned down Terri's appeal, and most of the federal district court judges in the US.

Doesn't seem to have done much good.

I didn't know the number was that high. Nevertheless, just because a Republican appoints them, for some reason, that doesn't keep them from drifting left.

You wouldn't consider many of them moderates or conservatives, would you? I thought not.

As you pointed out when you said Doesn't seem to have done much good. this is a tough, tough problem that isn't going to be fixed easily.

Good morning. Your thoughtful post deserved a response.

... 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.

Y'know, on the face of it, I agree completely. The big 'but' is that its been adjudicated and appealed and its done. The 'day in court' is over. It is a 'big deal', as every life is.

... The Congress got involved ...

And again the courts adjudicated and were appealed and were found without merit. Courts interpret laws. Thats what they've done here. I support the nuclear option and if we have unity on our side, perhaps the spineless senate will grow a pair. We don't coalesce unity by tearing at each other, nor will congress be encouraged by attacks on them that tried to help. Congress makes the laws and we cannot afford anymore demoncrap control of that process. Division on our side makes demoncrap control an ugly possibility.

... she was to be dehydrated/starved until she is DEAD.

Kinda SOP. Sorry.

... Unfortunately, the only thing that happened at the legislative and executive branch level was to draft, debate, pass and sign into law a measure

They tried, thaz all I know. That they tried is what is tearing at many of us. It was a judicial issue. Regardless of how 'many of us' feel, and regardless that the judicial rejected it again, they tried! Perhaps, as W said, "its better to err on the side of life", they tried. To hold the executive in contempt for not exercising abuse is really and truly counterproductive. Response to this contempt is why I first posted on this thread.

... That's my long winded rant for the night. ...

Our superiority is from being 'right'. Our strength is in unity. With unity we can affect the legislature. An effected legislature can cleanup the pond scum which the demoncraps have made of the judiciary.

I couldn't have said it better. Thanks.

Dear Balding_Eagle,

"You wouldn't consider many of them moderates or conservatives, would you? I thought not."

Well, if Republicans aren't putting many "conservatives" on the bench, then why are we bothering?

But I don't view the problem quite like that. It isn't a matter of "conservative" versus "liberal." Not exactly.

It's a matter of basic constitutional philosophy. To me (and I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps I oversimplify) the question is, "Is the judiciary the supreme and final arbiter of what is constitutional, legal, and morally permissible by law in the United States?"

If someone answers "yes," then they're part of the problem, not part of the solution. We have three CO-EQUAL branches of government, not two junior partners and the supreme judiciary. Each has the right to assert its view of the Constitution. None has the complete right to impose its lone view of the Constitution on the other two.

But ask most lawyers, and especially most judges, and once you get through all the song and dance (Why can a lawyer never answer a simple yes or no question with a simple yes or no? Because their time and billing programs don't track in time units that small.) you'll find that overwhelmingly, they believe that the judiciary is supreme over the other two branches.

Thus, we can elect all the Republicans we want. It won't do much good. There may not be enough lawyers in the United States who disagree with this consensus view to actually fill all the federal judgeships in the United States, to say nothing of state courts.

And the fact is, the Bush boys (all hat, no cattle) appear to have acceded to this viewpoint, as well. Gov. Bush seems to believe that the rulings of a probate judge have a higher precedence than the plain language of state law, which any number of legal scholars have advised authorize the governor to act in the face of the murderer greer's unconstitutional and illegal actions. President Bush seems to believe that a probate judge may entirely ignore federal law, sweep it aside, without so much as a la-di-da, and the president may take no action to remedy these illegal acts.

Okay, so it appears that the Bush boys are also judicial supremacists. At the very least, they refuse to take any action to disabuse the robed tyrants of this notion.

Thus, it becomes difficult to see just what the solution really might be.

Some folks wave around the impeachment clauses of the Constitution. That's nice.

But I suggest that folks read a bit of the history of the impeachment and conviction of the last federal judge to be so prosecuted, Alcee Hastings (Currently serving in the US House of Representatives from a brain-dead district and Florida. Hey, can we starve all those folks to death? There's really no evidence of brain activity, there.).

The reader will find that even with streamlined procedures and rules (ruled unconstitutional by lower courts, ultimately reversed by the Nazgul Nine), it was a time-consuming, lengthy process. If we posit that we wished to throw out, say, 10% of the well-over 1000 sitting federal judges at the appeals and district levels, and senior judges, we will find that the House and Senate will be in session roughly 36 hours per day, 9 days per week, 15 months per year, for a couple of decades.

Some justice once wrote that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

We are not obligated to interpret the Constitution, as a people, as a nation, in a way that permits an out-of-control, tyrannical judiciary to destroy our Constitution and overthrow our democracy. Our elected representatives, the President and the US Congress, are permitted to take the actions necessary to rein in the unconstitutional courts.

sitetest

"'It is my understanding that there is an organized effort by Dims to pretend to be conservatives and attack the Republican Party (and potential '08 candidates, in particular). Now I stongly doubt any of the people on this thread are such double-agents, but the absurdity of several folks on this position (e.g., the "Jeb's state police should have had a shoot out with the local police" folks) make me wonder.'

They are on every Shiavo thread. Crawling out of the woodwork. Makes me wonder too."

Yeah, FREEP regulars need to note that 90% of the impeach-Bushes folks are relatively NEW to the board.

"A majority federal judges in the United States were appointed by Republicans. Six out of nine of the Supreme Court, seven out of 12 of the 11th Circuit Appeals Court, which turned down Terri's appeal, and most of the federal district court judges in the US."

But most with a Dim Senate, which prevented real conservatives from becoming judges.

We now have both a Republican Senate (more or less) and Republican President. THAT is the difference.

Dear MeanWestTexan,

"We now have both a Republican Senate (more or less) and Republican President. THAT is the difference."

I don't hold out much hope in this regard.

In the last 24 years or so, we have had approximately:

- 9 years of a Republican President / Republican Senate
- 7 years of a Republican President / Democrat Senate
- 2 years of a Democrat President / Democrat Senate
- 6 years of a Democrat President / Republican Senate.

This suggests that we should have seen a rough balance ideologically on the courts, a little dominance toward Republicans.

In fact, the courts, ideologically, in terms of politics, are in rough balance, with a little dominance toward Republicans.

Sandra Day O'Connor was nominated by President Reagan with a Republican Senate.

Although he had to clear a Democrat Senate, Justice Kennedy went to the court as a foe of Roe v. Wade. Now he is a staunch supporter. Why? Because he believes that the precedents of the Court overrule the plain language of the Constitution. In other words, he believes in judicial tyranny more than he believes in a conservative interpretation of the Constitution.

That is the deeper problem.

It isn't a question of politics. It's a question of fundamental constitutional beliefs - does the judiciary have the final say on all matters of American life? It doesn't appear that most judges think otherwise. IT DOESN'T EVEN APPEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT OR THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS THINK OTHERWISE. It will be difficult to get a judiciary that doesn't believe in judicial supremacy, when neither the executive that nominates, nor the Senate that confirms think otherwise.

Judicial supremacy is the default belief of most lawyers, most judges, most politicians, and perhaps even most Americans.

It is the basis of the failure of President Bush from using executive authority to save the life of an innocent citizen, and it is the basis of Gov. Bush's belief that he has no power to obey the laws and constitution of Florida to prevent the judicial murder of a Florida citizen.

It is the basis of the failure of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate to ask the President of the United States to have the murderer greer arrested for contempt of Congress and for violating federal law.

It is unlikely that an executive and legislature that accept judicial supremacy will nominate and confirm judges who don't.

sitetest

We are a rule of law nation. If the Shindlers had good representation this would not be happening. To use Jeb as their scapegoat is wrong and lowers my opinion of them considering ALL that was legally done for them from George Bush, Congress and Jeb Bush. You should be ashamed of your remarks but your emotions are over ruling your thinking.

How sad is it that an innocent person's right to live hinges on whether the lawyers put on a good enough defense! If you don't have enough money for the best lawyers, the judges can kill you.

Well and truly stated, sitetest. The transparency of appearing to do something extraordinary yet failing to do something constructive will fool too many Americans. It is disgusting to witness such perfidy, but there it is.

"How sad is it that an innocent person's right to live hinges on whether the lawyers put on a good enough defense! If you don't have enough money for the best lawyers, the judges can kill you."

I'm not sure it was a question of money for the Shindlers but a question of competency. Competency should be a given regardless of how much they cost. It's a horrifically sad situation, no matter how you look at it.

Good afternoon. Hope this finds you well.

I'm semi-rested, and reflecting on this entire business, I think that we are mostly all on the same page regarding our view of the excesses of the judiciary in America.

The only difference (as I see it) is whether or not it is possible to repair what is broken from inside the established system, using the political mechanisms available (meaning the two dominant political parties), or whether the entire system is so rotten and corrupt that we must indeed, 'begin again'.

Our Founding Fathers believed that We The People have a right to abolish our government if that government fails to serve the public interest, if it becomes oppressive, if it exceeds it's authority and becomes a tyranny.

Tyranny is what American Patriots successfully fought to overthrow in the Revolutionary War. Tyranny is what is being imposed upon us by the out of control judiciary today, especially in the wake of the Schiavo case. By himself, Judge Greer is nothing but a pissant, a mediocre (at best) probate judge that is consumed with pride and arrogance due to the power he is able to wield. But when you combine such arrogance with the ingrained nature of his fellow jurists (both state and federal) to always protect their own self-interests, you have much more than just a pissant probate judge, you have someone who has destroyed the balance between our three branches of government, not so much by his own power, but by the failure of the other two branches to rein in the likes of Greer. I might add that Greer is not the only example of such judicial hubris, one needs only look at the 9th Federal Circuit (or circus as some call it) to see plenty of examples of over-reaching by judges, and that classic 'legislation from the bench'.

I recall a thread here on FR which described how Congress has the responsibility for defining the structure of our court system, and the only court that is truly mandated by the Constitution is the Supreme Court, i.e., it is technically possible for the Congress to dissolve the federal judiciary and begin with a fresh slate. Unfortunately, there is not the political courage to make such a move, and it is very likely that such a move would result in a very real civil war. Personally, I would say 'civil war be damned, bring it on'. But unless there is a true consensus among the majority of Americans that the federal judiciary must be renovated, reformed and rebuilt, nothing is going to change.

I think much of the problem is the inherent nature of the courts (both state and federal) to arbitrarily deny requests for hearings, reject appeals without comment, and I say 'what in Hell kind of justice is THAT?' Now I recognize that if the courts accepted each and every petitition filed that there would be a whole lot of nonsensical suits, but you know what? That's where the judges AND the courts ought to be earning their pay. Instead of cherry picking which cases they will hear, and which ones they will deny, they should be compelled to hear EVERY case, with the provision that if a case is truly without merit, if it is brought for frivolous purposes and is without foundation, the originator of such a suit (and their attorneys) must be levied a fine or penalty for wasting the court's time.

We hear all the time about how 'the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of...' and I say "you arrogant bastards, how DARE you 'agree to hear'?!? There is a case brought to you which requires the review of the highest court in the land, and it is brought to you because JUSTICE must be served and in the view of the litigants, justice has not been done."

The United States Supreme Court should be obligated to hear EVERY case brought before it, provided that such cases have exhausted all other federal and state courts first. Too many cases? Too bad. Make the SOBs put in for overtime. They don't even work a full year in the first place.

As it is, our judicial system is broken, justice is seldom delivered, and when it is? We have waited an obscene amount of time for that justice to be done. And even then, there is no guarantee that we won't wait longer due to the endless cycle of appeals, some which may be valid, but in many cases are not, and are nothing more than a court version of overtime in the NFL, when two teams that are tied are desperately hoping to score a winning point since neither one was able to win in regulation. (that's my take on it anyway)

We have been hearing for years about Democrats in the Senate using filibusters and every sort of gimmick to block qualified nominees from getting a simple up or down vote, but all the talk about the so-called 'nuclear option' is nothing more than that: talk. The Senate is nothing but a good ol' boys club, where everyone refers to their neighbor as 'my distinguished colleague', and 'my good friend', blah-blah-blah, and let me tell those Senatorial blowhards on BOTH sides of the aisle (as if they actually are listening, lol) "you were not elected to go make 'friends' and then make deals with those friends, and compromise endlessly while our Constitution is reduced to the equivalent of a sausage-based product, there is so much crap in there, it is impossible to define, and it ill-serves the people who sent you to Washington!"

I don't want Senators who glad-hand their buddies, be they Democrat or Republican, I want Senators who will legislate in the best interests of America, party affiliation be damned. Unfortunately, voters have such short memories, that even if their Senators (or Congressional reps) do everything except sodomize pigeons on the Capitol steps, the voters won't remember (or care) by the time the next electoral cycle comes around. Which is why we have this repeating cycle of mediocrity and corruption taking place.

What our elected officials in the House and Senate need to be subjected to is an annual review by the voters who elected them in the form of a referendum, and if they pass that referendum with an approval of 2/3rds or more, they stay in office. If not? They are subject to a recall election within 30 days, and it will be up to them to either convince the voters that they deserve to be returned to office, or they will be fired for not doing their job and rightly so. That would inject some REAL accountability, and while it might not be a perfect solution, it is better than what we have now.

The only other answers are to emulate our 1776 ancestors, and begin preparations for the next Revolution, and we have the RIGHT to start such a revolution because our Constitution GIVES us that right, the right to abolish the standing government if it no longer serves We The People.

I would like to think that the Republican Party is the best way to make the changes necessary without the need to completely tear down the system and start fresh. But I have not seen anyone in the GOP that has the courage to step up, take command, and LEAD such a battle. There is too much coziness and collaboration between Republicans and Democrats and as everyone ought to know by now, there can be no compromise between good and evil. One or the other must prevail.

Rant mode off. I need coffee.

Back later.

MM

The subpreme U.S. court hears cases of law, thus generalities by and large, not taken on an individual basis but on the grounds that a law or statute or general Constitutionally defined right is being violated as a rule not as a specific, though the cases (such as the one that lead to the Miranda rights) can come before them in a specific and render a specific sentence null while addressing the generality under which the case is allowed before the subpreme court.