Posted on 03/20/2005 10:27:51 PM PST by paltz
As Per Fox News
As defined by whom? What limits apply - any at all? According to Big Government boosters blowing their horns today, Congress and the President may do anything they please, if they like the result of course.
And Castro is President for Life. So is Kim Jong Il. You're advocating something similar for us?
"Perhaps he is the best she can do. Even Scott Peterson is getting marriage proposals!!"
I think she'd be better of going for Scott, at least he can't get out!
Well he is the one pushing this issue legally trying to have her put to death. He is the impediment in all this.
Further, the Congress isn't interfering with my life or pocket book while they attend to this matter. Better this than worrying about steroid ball.
It was a Tongue-in-cheek post. I thought I made that clear in my ending with "(sarcasm off)."
"That was the whole point behind tonight's legislation - TO GIVE THEM THAT RIGHT TO SUE IN FEDERAL COURT."
Yes, but they (the federal courts) are going to refuse that right. They don't want a right imposed upon them by the legislature. And they don't have to accept it. And they won't.
On we go now to our next battle - the federal judge.
======
The next battle indeed... but just think... if Terri was under Islamic law she would already have been dead for 15 years... taken out and buried up to her belly button in a vertical hole... then stoned to death for embarrassing her husband !!! ;-))
Yikes... I Slam Islam !!!
I would certainly invite you to do so . . . provided you can demonstrate the cognizant ability to make such distinctions. :)
Do you still not get the pun?
President FOR Life. As in PRO life. As in SUPPORTING life.
How much simpler can one make it?
Lighten up.
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush signed emergency
legislation sent to him by Congress early Monday to allow Terri Schiavo's parents ask a federal judge to prolong their daughter's life, capping days of emotional debate over who should decide life and death.
"In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life," Bush said in a statement after signing the bill.
After flying back to Washington from his Texas ranch, Bush had waited at the White House to sign the measure permitting a federal review of the case, which could trigger the reinsertion of feeding tubes needed to keep the brain-damaged Florida woman alive.
The House passed the bill on a 203-58 vote after calling lawmakers back for an emergency Sunday session for debate that stretched past midnight.
The measured was backed by 156 Republicans to 5 who voted against it and 71 who did not vote; 47 Democrats voted in favor, 53 against and 102 did not vote. The lone independent in the 435 member house did not vote.
The Senate approved the bill Sunday by voice vote.
Republican supporters said the "Palm Sunday Compromise" seeks to protect the constitutional rights of a disabled person and rejected suggestions that political motives lay behind the last-minute maneuver.
"When a person's intentions regarding whether to receive lifesaving treatment are unclear, the responsibility of a compassionate nation is to affirm that person's right to life," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. "In our deeds and public actions, we must build a culture of life that welcomes and defends all human life."
Many Democrats who opposed the bill said the congressional vote placed lawmakers in the middle of issues best left to state courts and family members.
"Today, congressional leaders are trying to appoint Congress as a judge and jury," said Rep. Jim Davis, D-Fla. "If we do not draw the line in the sand today, there is no limit to what democratic principles this Congress will ignore or what liberties they may trample on next."
"Yes, but they (the federal courts) are going to refuse that right. They don't want a right imposed upon them by the legislature. And they don't have to accept it. And they won't. "
You know this how? WHO gives 'rights', wow lady and you worry about protecting your system.
Just browsing.
I'm fine, thanks.
That is what I am afraid of...seems too many judges have their pants in a wad these days. Hopefully, there are one or two who understand the situation and can be reasonable.
That's what I'm thinking, too. But we're not supposed to be allowed to think things like that. It's doubleplusungood.
I have glanced over this thread, so I don't know if it was brought up or not, but all they have to do is give her an IV in the arm to give her fluids. She could last for a month without food, but loosing her electrolytes can further damage her more than now. A feeding tube could take a couple of hours after she gets to an ER and after all the foot draging they could do to try and make it last till tommorrow or Tuesday. An IV with glucose takes 5 minutes at the hospice if someone would just authorize it.
Yes....nicely done.
Why are you so sure about that? Unless you know the actual federal judge involved and have received that specific information from him or her, you cannot make that statement with any confidence.
For the slower witted "President for Life" is a double entendre.
And indeed even the most cherished conservative or libertarian principles sometimes have to superseded by the higher principle of maintaining an innocent, helpless human life.
Don't be silly. They may not rule the way we want, but they can't deny someone standing if they've met the statutory requirements provided by congress.
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.