Posted on 07/19/2005 11:02:47 AM PDT by faithincowboys
I don't have any earthly idea how she would come out on Roe as a Justice, where she would be free to vote for overrule. And in the thousands of posts on too many threads I've seen nobody has cited any evidence how she would vote in that circumstance. But I betcha Dubya has some idea of her views.
Hah! Now you need the chill pill, posting the same thing three times.
Bushbots vs. bushbots.. *LOL*
Pres Bush declared that the "strong have a duty to protect the weak" while he sat by cowardly as Terri Schiavo was starved to death and executed by a rogue two-bit county judge and a criminally abusive, adulterous, unfaithful husband. Bush (both GW and Jeb) could have intervened in they had the cajones to....but they both blinked and turned away. Heck even Bill Clinton defied both Florida state courts and the 11th Court of Appeals when he sent in armed federal agents to kidnap Elian Gonzales and return him to Cuba.
So sometimes as president, GW Bush does the right and duty and responsibility to uphold the Constitution and protection for all people under the 14th amendment (Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws).
He just didn't have the guts to do so....
That wasn't your understanding?
See post #125 to fully understand my position.
That's my position. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced that Clement is a bad choice, I just haven't seen anything yet against her that qualifies as anything other than hysterical ranting. What I have seen about her, so far, I like.
Well I guess we will find out tonight! In the meantime drop the "idiot" lingo!
I'll take that as an admission that you can't respond to my well reasoned and objectively true post. I'll take that lame ass post you replied with as evidence that you're waving your white flag.
Stop complaining. It could be a hell of a lot worse.
Meanwhile, check out Ode To Joy (Clement)
Someone, somewhere along the line, should have told you to defend the principle, not the President.
A blank-slate nominee isn't what I signed on for.
" executed by a rogue two-bit county judge"
So the judge issued an order saying "By order of this court, speaking for this county, this woman is to die, irrespective of the wishes of anyone"
No, I do not believe he did.
And speaking of "rogue two bit county judges", exactly in whose authority did Florida law place the dispute. To me, it looked like a standard family court dispute, something that goes on in thousands of courtrooms across this country daily, and we are going to single out this case for what reason?
You know, under the law, the decision in this case was the husbands to make and he made it. This doesn't mean I think he's an honorable man, it is my personal view that he's a scuzzball, this being said, we can't go violating state's rights just to make an example of scuzzballs.
"criminally abusive"
I want court recognized proof that backs up that allegation, if it is to be made
And you are correct Jeb could have intervened, but, he pretty much lost that ability when he tipped off the court that this was what he intended to do. The correct answer would have been to covertly issue a state of emergency, issue a press blackout, and snatch her out in the middle of the blackout, however, the political fallout from that would have been immeasureable.
" Heck even Bill Clinton defied both Florida state courts and the 11th Court of Appeals when he sent in armed federal agents to kidnap Elian Gonzales and return him to Cuba. "
So just because Bill Clinton does something, W and Jeb should do it.
What Clinton did was a violation of state's rights, by the same token, had W sent in the U.S marshalls to reconnect the tube, he would have violated state's rights as well.
And the use of the 14th amendment in this case is a real stretch, because the constitution is not designed to actually deal with a situation like this because if Terri's accident had occured in 1787, she would have died in 1787.
Hot damn, you people have low expectations. No wonder why we're in som much trouble, you people expect to be dogged out by your leaders. You don't expect them to deliver to you. What a bunch of cheap dates you are. You all really need Dr. Phil to sort out why you put up getting lied to and walked all over.
Someone, somewhere should have told you to do your research before posting conclusions. (Not to mention that vanities are discouraged.)
But then again, how can I possibly reason with someone whose entire response as to the source of complaints against this potential nominee was, and I quote:
souter
Truly, I am awed by the brilliance that went into that response.
And apparently, I'm supposed to be jolly about getting f'ed over. You can, I'll pass. You can put on the clown nose and juggle on a unicycle for GWB, my days of doing that are over.
You never answered the questions I raised in post 125 , therefore, I'll assume you can't. So what's the use talking to you anymore.
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.