Posted on 03/23/2005 10:51:18 AM PST by Westpole
Bush blew it by not vetoing the Shaivo Act. He simply lost the moral high ground of wanting judges that are good jurists rather than politicians. This act of congress asked for federal intervention because the Republicans did not like result of a state court action. It is particularly egregious because heretofore family law issues were indisputably the province of State law. What Bush has done is give complete legitimacy to the liberal tactic of demanding a result..the constitution, the public will and due process be damned. In the near future when the Senate liberals filibuster a Bush nominee it will be much hard for Bush to claim his appointees are not "litmus tested" jurists. And since it takes two to tango Democrats have every right to demand before they vote that the nominee passes their litmus test. the result will be a very protracted and nasty nominating process. How every short sighted of Bush's advisors. Had Bush vetoed the bill he could have held high his believe in respect of judicial process and the constitution. Now he has to admit he wants judges that give him a predetermined result. Very poor judgement here Mr. President
That's hilarious. All this time I thought she was a sea monster...
No, it couldn't. The Constitution sets limits as to what that means. But I'd like to see the part where it says that the federal government can't intervene when someone is being murdered.
Please, show me.
Yep, Ike should have not gotten involved in integrating schools in Arkansas, after all it was a state issue. Bull Conner knew what was best for his state, after all.
So you think it was wrong for the FBI to investigate the 'states' for ignoring lynchings of black individuals in the south during the civil rights era?
So slavery, abortion, homosexual marriage ... states issues?
No .. Congress gave her a chance to have her rights protected in a court of law and her case heard in Fed Court
Why is it that everyone has an attorney representing them .. but the one person who can't ask for one
Terri
Precisely. That's why the Senate version of this law was sponsored by Dianne Feinstein, Carl Levin, Chuck Schumer, and Joe Leiberman.
The state court action violated Terri's right to life, liberty, and property. The Federal government is allowed by the Constitution to stop a state action that denies a citizen any one of these.
The state court is relying on the hearsay only of one side. The husband claims she wants to die, the parents claim she wants to live. What gives the court the right to read minds to see who's telling the truth? In this case, Terri should be allowed an unbiased person to take over the responsibility of her care, and a lawyer of her own to defend her right to life. There is no right to death in the Constitution. Even suicide is illegal!
I'd say this author can't reason or focus well enough to get the main character correct.
All the nitpicking about how poorly the State Court acted is the same type of rhetoric activist judges applied when they took over school districts around the country for bussing.
Do you think the Democrats are going to refrain from sticking their noses into state issues just because the Republicans don't choose to do so? The Schiavo case will no absolutely no impact on the role of the Federal Government...none. That train left the station years ago.
Cases often go from state courts to federal courts - what's the difference?
It seems that the basic formula is that the Constitution doesn't say what specific things the federal government can't do (although the amendments get into some specifics they can't do) but instead says what the federal government can do and then reserves other things to the states. I guess you can argue that this is a 14th Amendment case, making it a federal issue.
My point wasn't that I think it's a good thing that Terri is dying, because I don't. I can only even begin to imagine her parents' anguish. But I was just pointing out that when you said that "federal documents" guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that means this case about life can be federal, that could open up a whole new can of worms because "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" aren't a grant of federal power in the COnstitution and could be used to argue that any case can be federal.
OK let me make it simple. Under the constitution the judicial branch settles "cases and controversies" and the legislative branch makes laws. The Shiavo case is a "controversey" to pass a law to settle a controversey does as much damage as the judiciairy attempting to pass a law on the pretext of settling a controversey. Make sense?
So according to your logic, Gore actually should be in the White house? Should this court be allowed to rewrite election laws after the fact as a "state right?"
How many Constitutional rights is a state allowed to change? Can they chose to bring back slavery?
No that is not my logic Gore should not be in the White House..the Florida Supreme Court was attempting to write the law not "settle a controversey" in the Shiavo case congress is violating the seperating of powers principal as well.
You should have read Article III before you accuse the President or the Congress of acting out of their scope of authority.
The CONGRESS constructs and regulates THE COURTS. THE COURTS have now snubbed the Congressional request - and this is not going to set well.
Believe me .. conservatives are watching what these DEMOCRAT JUDGES are doing .. and THIS IS BILL CLINTON's REAL LEGACY - JUDICIAL TYRANNY.
Not sure what point you're trying to make. I was just pointing out that a lot of "state" issues end up in federal court. Simple, really.
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.