Posted on 03/23/2005 7:40:30 AM PST by topher
This is basically what I discussed with my wife this morning. Jeb Bush has the power. Right now he's having to chose between a skewering by the media and probable political suicide, vs. doing what's right and conscienable.
Let's hope he decides correctly... and soon.
It expressed a wish that the Governor of Florida be empowered to sign an executive order requiring re-insertion of Terri's feeding tube. The law was popularly known as "Terri's Law", try Google.
This decision is much more famous than one that Clinton was involved in.
There is some historical quote to the effect of Jackson saying to the US Supreme Court "Let them try to enforce it" referring to the decision.
Gold was found on Indian land in Georgia was part of it, but the other part was that the Indians sided with the British in the War of 1812, which Jackson fought in.
Moving the Indians was thought to be in the best interests of the nation -- especially after the Indians joined with the British in the War of 1812.
Are you serious?
" ... he has the authority and must act ... "
This is your edict?
Then you must have a problem with the U.S. Constitution, which allows for Congress to establish courts and set their jurisdictions.
He is not running for re-election in 2006 and he does not want to be President. Of course, he could run for the US Senate seat in Florida...
Those might be the political considerations.
But I agree -- let him do what is right. We need someone in poltical office with the cahunas to do the right thing.
It took a lot more courage to invade Iraq than to save this woman's life.
I have made it simple. If a policeman stands by while an innocent woman is murdered, what sort of a policeman is he?
In a sense, Jeb is that policeman who must act to prevent the murder. Pretty black and white...
Here is Judge Ed Carnes of the 11th Circuit panel saying:
"... if Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument were allowed to stand, it would mean a massive revision of how the courts have interpreted the First Amendment for years."
This leftist judge decided not to consider Terri's case.
Should you wish to circumvent the discussion, by all means do so.
The point is that the governor has not stormed the hospice care provider in Largo and taken custody of Terri.
The question is ... why not?
This has been stated, but finding the thread and post will take time. If I can find it, I will post, but I can't promise it will appear in the next 48 hours...
But the only point I wish to make is that videos of Terri were used as evidence, and the New York Times has posted an article about the horrible eyesight of Judge Greer -- so bad he cannot drive.
But I am not sure if he is or is not legally blind.
Advocating anarchy--such an interesting concept to find on FR.
It is not the first time in America -- 1776 and the Rebellion against a king in England.
And then there was a discussion about things after President Abraham Lincoln was made President -- the bloodiest war in American history [the Civil War].
In the latter [Civil War], both sides thought they were right and were willing to die for their cause.
Folks who have fought in the Military I have respect for. They probably have seen death, and sometimes because of really stupid decisions and sometimes they have also seen very courageous things done.
It is not the first time in America -- 1776 and the Rebellion against a king in England.
And then there was a discussion about things after President Abraham Lincoln was made President -- the bloodiest war in American history [the Civil War].
In the latter [Civil War], both sides thought they were right and were willing to die for their cause.
Folks who have fought in the Military I have respect for. They probably have seen death, and sometimes because of really stupid decisions and sometimes they have also seen very courageous things done.
Yeah, everyone has a duty to accept injustice, all the time.
So now they blame the judicial system who are just doing their job of interpreting the laws as written.
And courts interpret laws infallibly, all the time.
It is unfortunate that society thinks they have to take issues all the way to the Supreme Courts and still cannot accept the laws of the land.
Actually, you're right, it is unfortunate that the public sees the judiciary as the only option, and the Supreme Court as the last word, rather than seeing the executive and legislature as co-equal branches.
It is not the job of the judiciary to appease people with agendas,
No but it is their job to serve justice. Violating Terri Schiavo's right to life does not, any way you slice it. If you like let me just point to the 14th amendment. No judge can rationally explain why her 14th amendment rights are not being violated in this case.
However it is easy to point out a handful of rulings from various Circuits and assume the entire process is corrupt
True, and it's easier when there's an entire pattern rather than a random handful.
This court has ruled on individual rights as opposed to states rights.
My, what a totally NOT superficial summary of this case! You should have an opinion column.
The court has "ruled on" "individual rights"? yes, I suppose that's true. They have ruled that Terri Schiavo, the individual, lacks the right to life, and meanwhile, Michael Schiavo, a different individual, has the right to make her dead if he wants.
That what you meant?
And generally the court will always favor the individual right and not the right of the collective.
except in this case, where the "collective" is deciding that an individual should die.
Agree or disagree, someone will always be upset with a ruling and that is the way it always will be.
Brilliant observation, really. But this gets us nowhere. You're right that someone will always be upset with a ruling. And? someone was upset with the Dred Scott decision. Someone was upset with the Bush v. Gore decision. Someone was upset with their decision overturning laws against flag-burning. and so it goes. None of this tells us anything about whether any of those respective decisions were right or wrong, just or unjust.
Nor does it refute the point of the author above, which is that the executive branch is co-equal with the judicial branch, not subservient to it.
The pressure placed upon the Judiciary has to be immense and I wouldn't want the job. The Judiciary is not a popularity contest.
Actually it kinda is. Except, usually to win this contest you don't (generally) have to be "popular" among the American public, but rather, among the members of the ABA and various left-wing opinion leaders and Congressmen.
Look at Bush's recent appointees... not popular among lefties and ABA types, therefore Boxer & friends are blocking them.
Unless, of course, the majority in the legislature too asserts its power.
It is not the first time in America -- 1776 and the Rebellion against a king in England.
And then there was a discussion about things after President Abraham Lincoln was made President -- the bloodiest war in American history [the Civil War].
In the latter [Civil War], both sides thought they were right and were willing to die for their cause.
Folks who have fought in the Military I have respect for. They probably have seen death, and sometimes because of really stupid decisions and sometimes they have also seen very courageous things done.
Again, by whose edict?
Let me ask you this. Do you think Governor Bush knows more about this situation than you, or I?
Do you think Governor Bush should make decisions, he was elected to make, based on the laws, his personal feelings, or the feelings of many who may, or may not know all the facts?
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.