[traderrob6]

Analytical cowpies

[yellowdoghunter]

I agree, for the most part. I am afraid we will rue the day that some of us championed for the Fed. Gov. to get involved. This is a state issue. One that Florida needs to handle.

[RockinRight]

I am not sure what to think about this.

[FormerACLUmember]

What the freek? Are you kidding me? What planet is this dude on?

[Echo Talon]

Troll? **Sniff Sniff**

[eyespysomething]

Do you have a link for this?

[PilloryHillary]

HUH?

[ksen]

It is particularly egregious because heretofore family law issues were indisputably the province of State law.

Until Roe v. Wade that is.

[roylene]

First, I will type this very slowly so you can understand .. the act was to allow federal judaical review - not to save Teri necessarily.

[inkling]

So you assume the "moral high ground" by starving disabled women? A curious ethic this author has.

[concerned about politics]

Yep. This IS the Roe vs. Wade case for euthanasia.
If this killing stands, 5 years from now families will have a "private choice" to starve anyone who may be considered a burden or less than perfect in their family. It will be deemed politically correct, and anyone speaking out against it will be charged with a hate speech crime.

[Redcloak]

I have no idea what you're talking about...

...so here's a picture of Helen Thomas before she sheds her antlers.

[aculeus]

Snore.

[Mo1]

This act of congress asked for federal intervention because the Republicans did not like result of a state court action

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

[concerned about politics]

This act of congress asked for federal intervention because the Republicans did not like result of a state court action

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!

[Rudder]

"Shaivo Act."

I'd say this author can't reason or focus well enough to get the main character correct.

[CyberAnt]

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.

[My Favorite Headache]

[citizen]

I'm afraid the guy will be right.

MSM & Dims will somehow play this against apellate and Supremes nominees.

[conservativecorner]

It won't be hard for Bush at all. He wants judges that strictly adhere to the Constitution. What congress did for Terri is covered under Article 3, so your argument goes out the window. For that matter we already know the demonrats will oppose jurists with a strict interpretation of the Constitution. We have the last 4 years as proof.