Posted on 03/23/2005 10:51:18 AM PST by Westpole
Welcome to FR.
Heh. I couldn't have put it better.
And who is "Robert Barnstone"?
No they're not. They're well within their jurisdiction. The federal government has every right to over ride a state if the people in that state are being denied their Constitutional rights. If that weren't the case, California would be crucifying Christians!
There certainly are a fair number of new FReepers signing up in the last few days, aren't there? Why, one would almost wonder if they came to discuss the Terry Schiavo situation!
Welcome all who come. Be warned though, if you've come to simply exploit yet another volatile topic in the hopes it will tear FR apart, don't waste your time. We've seen that game played countless times before.
That's why the bill was written narrowly. If Congress doesn't want to get involved in another state issue, they aren't required to. Congressional bills aren't legal precedents.
Well .. statistics show that approx 90% of Clinton appointees side with LIBERAL ISSUES - which is why they were appointed.
And .. this further points up why the democrats are so adamant to keep the Clinton judges as the predominant force in the judiciary; it's the only way the democrats can get their agenda passed - because when their ideas are put to a vote - the public just won't buy them.
I'm sure there are a few who will side with TRUTH - and not allow politics to enter into their decision - regardless of who appointed them.
They're drooling over the thought of seeing this woman dead. They get orgasmic over the concept of the innocent dieing. Late term abortion really turns them on!
I'm afraid the guy will be right.
MSM & Dims will somehow play this against apellate and Supremes nominees.
Exactly.
It wouldn't work. People fear death, especially their own.
They may say they support the husbands choice in case they ever have to carry a burden, but in their conscience, they also know the burden could end up being THEM someday. They will chose life.
If the Constitution doesn't protect our basic rights to life, liberty, and property, it is completely worthless, and any other ideas it may have are completely useless, because the people that they might apply to won't be alive or will be enslaved.
Federalism does NOT mean giving up civil rights. Federalism doesn't mean that one state can unilaterally decide to, say, declare it illegal for red-heads to vote. In the same way, Federalism doesn't allow for state governments to sit on their hands while someone is murdered, and thus denied all rights guarenteed in the Constitution.
Most definitely.
Slavery and racism were and are wrong. I think Arkansas would have come to that conclusion on its own.
When?
I am sure the good, hard-working and decent folks of Arkansas would have come to the right conclusion very soon. And guess what, it is THEIR state, if a free country, if you don't like you, you MOVE!
Yep who cares if they violate the rights of its citizens guaranteed in the Constitution, it's a state issue. But if they don't want to be subject to the US Constitution, they can secede (oh wait, they've already tried that, didn't work out too well).
Yeh, let's gather round the fire and talk about how good we feel because we justified starving a helpless woman to death for judicial integrity. Pass the weenies!
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.