Posted on 03/27/2005 9:29:42 PM PST by Schwarzeneger
The starving of human being on hearsay evidence is WRONG. Its the duty of Jeb Bush to do the right thing.
>>Maybe.
>>What about the legislature? Don't they have a role before >>a governor?
>>What about an appeals court?
my point exactly! All of them have the power to stop this. Its like when all the courts said that blacks were subhuman (including the supreme court)
Exactly, if:
1. The higher courts let the ruling stand,
2. The legislature will not pass a law changing the decision.
What is the executive to do? It almost does not matter what the ruling is. Now if the ruling required executive ACTION, the executive could make it a low priority. The ruling in this case does not require executive action, thus the executive can do little.
I know none of this changes the immorality of the situation. But to blame the Bush brothers is silly. The blame lies with the courts. Particularly the blame lies with the Federal Court for ignoring a law passed by Congress asking for a total review of the case. If I were Congress, I would squeeze their budget really really really tight this year. And I would have Greer before a committee about his ignoring a Congressional subpeona.
Wrong....
The executive can direct the Protective Services to do thier job and take the girl into protective custody.
or he could declare a state emergency and allow the state police to take juristiction over the sherrifs dept and physically remove her himself. The first step here would be to have the sherrifs dept. replaced with state police and get control of the situation.
Whats happening here is clearly againnst a number of laws. None of these laws say "unless a judge rules you want to be killed".
It is fundementally insane to allow hearsay evidence be the determining factor to allow the state to kill a viable life.
Also these Judges need to be challenged. Cowering behind an orderfrom a judge and washing your hands isn't going to get that job done. Also, asking the judicial branch to restrain itself is also not going to be fruitful. There needs to be action by the legislative and executive to deal with the courts. The courts can essentially make any law twist to thier desired outcome by interpreting it so. There has to be an end to this. A challenge needs to occur. You could never legislate out every misinterpretation by these judges. Common sense has to be used, and certainly human life can't be so devalued that a judges loose finding of fact can condemn an innocent viable life.
>> The blame lies with the courts.
No the blame lies with us all...All of us that DO NOTHING. We are the people of the United States. The legal system is broken. Our leaders (and I respect The Bush family VERY much) need to stand up. They are in the positions to be stand up leaders. And they can effect REAL change.
I thought the Republicans were going to use this Schiavo case to set the precendent that they will not follow the judges orders at all times.
Which they may have been planning on doing, but since the MSM and dems whipped up the people to support Euthenasia.. only about 34% of the population wanted Terri to live. And of that 34%, maybe half of those.. so 18% would support action by the executive or legislative branches.
They need a more popular issue, like the judges striking down bans on gay marriages. Its obvious these judges are out of control. And it seems to be growing exponentially their bravado.
Can't do things based on polls. Reagan and Bush are BIG winners because they haven't. Gotta do whats right and take your lumps. Its the only way to go,
I agree with you on most issues, but in a constitutional crisis, I believe you will need the overwhelming support of the nation, on the issue. Of course the judges know this too, so will pick cases that set precendents like this.. that they believe the public will support.
And if support turns away from them, they can overule it on appeals to save face.
You are a fanatical moron. You have just proved it.
Let's see:
1. The Court enjoined the executive from taking the action you suggest. No higher court would stay the injunction. Were the state say seeking to remove your children from you for what you felt was no good reason or because your neighbor social worker did not like your religion etc, you would be happy to have a judiciary that with power to stop it.
2. The Courts are there partly to protect individual rights from the will of the majority. The court found that this woman did not wish to live this way.
Look, I think this judge is wrong. I think the appeals courts at all levels are sort of like a 1930s appeals courts that let death penalties be carried out rather than consider new evidence. Like in the past with death penalty cases, evidence on appeal has taken a back seat to process. That is a very bad thing in my view, but in death penalty cases, groundless claims of new evidence is a problem. Still in both the current case and in death penalty cases, I think we should err on the side of life. We the people need to elect legislators who will not allow someone's life to be taken on "evidence" like this. But apparently the people of Florida have yet to demand this of their state legislators.
>>>The Court enjoined the executive from taking the action you suggest.
The court CAN NOT arbitrarily do that. Thats the point of my post. If the court ordered Jeb to allow a man to beat his wife to death, I don't think Jeb could be required to follow that court order.
When the supreme court ruled that blacks were fractional humans it was wrong, and i think that bold leaders stood up and said NO. WRONG. Even though the entire courts of the day and the majority of voters felt that balcks were sub human. They WERE WRONG.
Wow name calling. Now thers some real evidence.
All the evidence is out there. Its in the court record. We all know it backward and upside down. Your post is that of a moron.
"Cowering behind an orderfrom a judge and washing your hands isn't going to get that job done."
Reminds me of Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the blood of Jesus and putting the blame on Herod. Pilate had the power to stop Jesus' death, but chose not to. (In that case, I'm glad he didn't or I wouldn't be saved) but the point is he was a coward-just like Jeb Bush.
The court record ohhhh. It trumps everything.
Thats another thing. These courts have a cadre of bandits who leech off these courts. Most of these local courts use and select thier own guardian's ad litem, court experts, etc. All of these folks make thier living off the court. Drive around the court house and look at the offices and organizations directly arounfd the court house. Even lawyers know aboiut getting "hometowned" and understand what this means.
If you believe that just because the Judge decides that it is a FACT that Terri said to her husband while watching an epiosde of Melrose place that she wanted to be allowed to starve to death, that it is fact. Then you are lemming.
The court CAN NOT arbitrarily do that. Thats the point of my post. If the court ordered Jeb to allow a man to beat his wife to death, I don't think Jeb could be required to follow that court order.
______________________________________________________
Of course Bush would appeal. If the higher courts let it stand, then it would be tougher if not impossible for Bush to act.
But you are ignoring that the Courts are enjoining Bush from doing something NOT requiring him to do something. That takes tie the hands of the executive some.
Main Entry: lem·ming
Pronunciation: 'le-mi[ng]
Function: noun
Etymology: Norwegian
: any of various small short-tailed furry-footed rodents (as genera Lemmus and Dicrostonyx) of circumpolar distribution that are notable for the recurrent mass migrations of a European form (L. lemmus) which often continue into the sea where vast numbers are drowned
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.