Posted on 03/20/2005 6:03:40 PM PST by FoxPro
This is an unprecedented session. The Congress is meeting to save one persons life (in real time).
The only reason the Democrats are agreeing to this is that they don’t want to be known as the party that killed Terri.
This is American history happening before your eyes.
They will not be responsible for the precedent. They can NOT guarantee that!!!
The appeal court will establish precedent, by overruling 200 years of it.
Yawn
"Well, I don't know what else could be done beyond the federal courts."
"Right and I got called a murderer for wondering aloud that earlier"
Who on earth did that?
Excellent points and so well said!
LOL!! If a bill has to state that, then obviously the authors are concerned that it establishes precedent.
And you can bet that it does.
You're a bit new here to be ordering people off of Free Republic.
If the country was operating under the constitution, then I doubt Terri's life would be under threat by a Judge such as Greer. The misinterpretation of the Establishment clause to the "wall of separation" clause alone has done irrefutable harm to the value of human life in state government.
The current law passed by congress is hardly a radical expansion of congressional power in light of recent absurd expansions via the interstate commerce clause used by the left.
The road back will be incremental, and is for the patient and strong. Demanding immediate results is an exercise in futility.
I read the bill, and there is no guarantee that the courts won't set precedent. It's out of the Congress' hands...for now.
Harken back to the gay marriage vote in California. It was voted down by the people, and the court ruled that vote was unconstitutional. Congress (We The People) spoke out, now the thing is, will the courts rule the "will of the people" unconstitutional or not? That's been my dig. Beyond that, I don't see how that's advocating murder, when it's widely known on FR I'm a pro-life Conservative.
I think the precendent is that if a court orders the death of an innocent person and you can get enough congresspersons to agree, you can have a federal court review the case.
I'm not entirely opposed to that precendent.
I pinged him, Petronski did.
ROFL! I watched that strawman created before my eyes tonight on this forum,in the same way many others have been.
That statement you made is absolutely untrue.
King cut him off before he finished that thought.You took the fragment and created the the proof you wanted, and because it fits your convictions, you are using it as some sort of gotcha.
Absolutely amazing.
"They will not be responsible for the precedent. They can NOT guarantee that!!!
The appeal court will establish precedent, by overruling 200 years of it."
You are no longer making sense. The courts have already time and time again established precedent, by overruling 200 years of the Constitution.
Ignore the emotion. The place has been hopped up on emotion the last few days. Besides, it's always good to have some counterweight here. I happen to agree with much of what you've been posting, as you know, and have taken a beating myself.
Don't leave.
So how is your statement different from mine. It is still precedent.
I agree with sinkspur. Don't leave Cold Heat.
Maybe if you could read you would note that Cold Heat was saying he was packing his bags and leaving. I was just asking him to do so quietly and with no opus. If you don't like it tough.
So, it would appear that every dispute involving end-of-life issues, even those involving terminally ill people, is subject to federal review.
We're gonna need a few more judges.
"Right and I got called a murderer for wondering aloud that earlier"
"I pinged him, Petronski did."
I am still looking for this, I think you are taking his words out of context.
Not sure if the below is a comprehensive website, but it appears that among Dems Jim Al-Tikriti McDermott is a physician, as is Vic Snyder of Arkansas.
Here's a list of the physicians in Congress and how they voted:
SENATE - Bill passed by voice vote
Bill Frist (R-TN) Supported bill
Tom Coburn (R-OK) Position unknown
HOUSE - Bill passed by roll call vote
Tom Price (R-GA) Yes
Charles Boustany (R-LA) Did not vote
Michael Burgess (R-TX) Yes
Phil Gingrey (R-GA) Yes
Jim Al-Tikriti McDermott (D-WA) No
Ron Paul (R-TX) Did not vote
Vic Snyder (D-AR) Yes
Dave Weldon (R-FL) Yes
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.