Skip to comments.
Senate panel approves bill to let Bush intervene in Schiavo case with 10-2 Vote
ABC Action News ^
| Oct 21, 2003
| AP
Posted on 10/21/2003 7:15:59 AM PDT by amdgmary
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-196 next last
To: OldFriend
I hope people care enough about me to intervene so I can stay in that wonderful state of life for as long as science can manage.You consider food and water modern science?
No wonder you don't have a clue.
To: pollywog
That is totally the opposite of what I've been hearing. Oh my... please let me know...
22
posted on
10/21/2003 7:38:42 AM PDT
by
carton253
(To win the War on Terror, we must, at once, raise the black flag!)
To: amdgmary
Senate panel approves bill to let Bush intervene in Schiavo case with 10-2 Vote
Reading this gave me chills... continued prayers for Terri bump.
If they can just delay it a few more hours, Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer's ward will need kidney dialysis to keep her body alive. Then the debate can be shifted legitimately from Jeb Bush's indecisive leadership to the state's responsibility for extended life care and quality of life when it requires machines to keep a person alive. Wouldn't want to move too quickly. [A man of words but not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds.]
24
posted on
10/21/2003 7:40:27 AM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
To: ellery
praying for a vote in the FLSenate pronto...
25
posted on
10/21/2003 7:42:44 AM PDT
by
AFPhys
(((PRAYING for: President Bush & advisors, troops & families, Americans)))
To: GraniteStateConservative
A federal judge can intervene to say this is unconstitutional. The state courts might even rule it such first.I don't mean to be rude, but don't you think that a situation where a judge says, "It's unconstitutional to feed people when I say you can't feed them!" is absolute gibberish, Constitutionally-speaking?
The legislature is intended to act as a restraint on out-of-control judges (and vice versa). The executive, not the judiciary, has the police power.
It's very disturbing that the other branches of the government would allow a single judge's whim to have this much impact for this long.
26
posted on
10/21/2003 7:43:12 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(Where am I? Who are all these kids, and why are they calling me Mom?)
Bttt...
27
posted on
10/21/2003 7:43:13 AM PDT
by
Chad Fairbanks
(Francis Scott Key was a One-Hit Wonder)
To: GraniteStateConservative
A federal judge can intervene to say this is unconstitutional. The state courts might even rule it such first. You mean a judge WILL intervene and rule it unconstitutional. We've come to the days where judges make laws and break laws. Judges have the authority to give court orders which may as well be the same as congressional law. Judge Dredd has ordered the execution of a woman and his judicial buddies will cover his back. The biggest mistake the framers of the Constitution made was giving life terms to judges and not giving the Congress authority to remove radical judges. Only a judge can remove another judge.
28
posted on
10/21/2003 7:43:21 AM PDT
by
m1-lightning
(Pay your taxes with stamps. Maybe they'll get the hint.)
To: MHGinTN
Can Michael refuse her dialysis too?
29
posted on
10/21/2003 7:43:55 AM PDT
by
GYPSY286
To: pollywog
Yes, please check up if you can ... I don't want to e-mail the Senator if he's not the problem.
30
posted on
10/21/2003 7:44:06 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(Where am I? Who are all these kids, and why are they calling me Mom?)
To: carton253
The Florida House scheduled a Monday night session to take up the issue. In the Senate, President Jim King said he will propose legislation that would give Gov. Jeb Bush the authority to order the feeding tube be reinserted to keep Terri Schiavo alive.
The tube was removed Wednesday following a decade-long court battle between Schiavo's parents and their son-in-law, who contends that he is carrying out her wishes not to be kept alive artificially.
"If we are to err - because time is of the essence - for goodness sake let us err on the side of caution," said King, a Republican.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Senator King is the one not allowing the bill to come to a vote in the Senate
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No. Jim King wanted to introduce the bill as I see it. Anyone else?? or am I reading something into this article that is not there.READ ABOVE!!!!!!!!!!
31
posted on
10/21/2003 7:45:06 AM PDT
by
pollywog
To: GirlShortstop
We'll need the names of the 2 that voted against Terri. No compassion for them if their names are ever on the voter ballot.
To: amdgmary
Heaven help Terri, and give her strength.
This is wonderful news. Last nights vote and the awareness of the legislature was nothing short of miraculous. Most expounded the truth, which was something we were sure they didn't see.
My shame is in not raising my outcry to its current level months ago, at the very least.
33
posted on
10/21/2003 7:45:41 AM PDT
by
kenth
(This is not your father's tagline.)
To: Tax-chick
Sorry, about the bad info... but all news reports I have heard has Senator King holding the bill up.
34
posted on
10/21/2003 7:46:18 AM PDT
by
carton253
(To win the War on Terror, we must, at once, raise the black flag!)
To: pollywog; carton253
they crafted this bill to apply ONLY to Terri. before that King was expressing skepticism about the wisdom of such a bill. i don't believe he has fought against this narrow bill.
that being said, i'm angry that it is so narrowly crafted, but that's a battle for another time - this must pass NOW (like, three days ago) to save her... no time for philosophical arguments here.
35
posted on
10/21/2003 7:46:41 AM PDT
by
AFPhys
(((PRAYING for: President Bush & advisors, troops & families, Americans)))
To: amdgmary
Opponents say the measure is unconstitutional. What is these folks don't get about "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"????
36
posted on
10/21/2003 7:47:17 AM PDT
by
Aracelis
To: pollywog
According to that article, you are correct. According to the news accounts, he is the one holding the bill up.
If he is the President of the Senate... then he can propose the bill, so what's the hold up?
Thank you for your investigation of this.
37
posted on
10/21/2003 7:48:12 AM PDT
by
carton253
(To win the War on Terror, we must, at once, raise the black flag!)
To: pollywog
Thanks.
38
posted on
10/21/2003 7:48:30 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(Where am I? Who are all these kids, and why are they calling me Mom?)
To: CougarGA7
The full Senate planned to consider the legislation Tuesday evening. I can't believe this, they are waiting till this evening? Must have arm twisting to do.
39
posted on
10/21/2003 7:48:32 AM PDT
by
Valpal1
(Impeach the 9th! Please!!)
To: carton253
If he was holding up the bill, it wouldn't have gotten to the Senate rules committee or be scheduled for a vote later today.
40
posted on
10/21/2003 7:48:49 AM PDT
by
Catspaw
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-196 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson