Posted on 03/20/2005 10:27:51 PM PST by paltz
As Per Fox News
I agree.
It's hard taking a clue from the clueless. An oxymoron is a word or words that implies a meaning which is impossible on its face. For example: "sensible Democrat."
And to clear up a possible misconception..Torah is the first five books of the Bible.
I'm toasting back (holding cookie up to screen). :o) Sto Lat!
Thank you. That explains that.
Bush can shove his CFR; there will be massive resistance and disobedience to that piece of tyrannical nonsense. It'll die just like Prohibition, or American Revolution 2.0 will result.
You mean like the slippery slopes in Barney Frank's house?
I know! I've seen some freepers whom I have admired for the thoughts they have espoused, but in this case I have seen enough of the dark side to consider changing my home page to some blog somewhere, instead of FR. I've been here since impeachment days, and it boggles my mind how far some are from what I consider a righteous point of view. I am as agnostic as anyone out there, and not a big bible person either, but I know that there is a right and a wrong.
It's a bit more than that. The five books are known as the Pentateuch, which is the core but not the entirety of the Torah. There are also many books of prohpets and writings. Here's a good reference to Jewish scripture:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm
So true in so many ways....
No way! I can't see why anyone would want to be mixed up with that man.
You're basically a libertarian Hank. That may not be your political party, but that seems to be your philosophy. There are actually a lot of libertarians in the US. They just don't know they're libertarians.
If you're "non-partisan" I'd be interested what you sounded like or would be posting if you were partisan. but I'm sentimentally on your side, obviously, in this issue.
LOL!
Thank you. I marked it and will check it out. Torah, Talmud, Terri. Too many t's for me tonight. Time to knock off.
881503CONCUR v. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPT. OF HEALTH
No. 881503
[June 25, 1990]
Justice Scalia, concurring.
The various opinions in this case portray quite clearly the difficult, indeed agonizing, questions that are presented by the constantly increasing power of science to keep the human body alive for longer than any reasonable person would want to inhabit it. The States have begun to grapple with these problems through legislation. I am concerned, from the tenor of today's opinions, that we are poised to confuse that enterprise as successfully as we have confused the enterprise of legislating concerning abortion requiring it to be conducted against a background of federal constitutional imperatives that are unknown because they are being newly crafted from Term to Term. That would be a great misfortune.
While I agree with the Court's analysis today, and therefore join in its opinion, I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life-and-death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable.
Cruzan v. Director, DMH 497 US 261 (1990
If Roe v Wade, (a law based on just one person), could open the door to legalized abortion on demand, then perhaps this law could have a similar effect on the right to LIFE. You should be far more afraid of one "judge" trashing a voiceless person's right to life because in this generation of Judicial abuse these appelate rulings tend to become case law and affect us ALL.
Leftist judges have been trampling all over the rights of Americans for decades now. Somebody, somewhere has to take a stand against this massive abuse of the Judiciary. I for one am very happy with the action the Congress has taken.
Sorry, I made an error (it's late and I should be asleep, I apologize). The five books are in fact the Torah aka Pentateuch, but not the entirety of the Hebrew Bible which contain the other books mentioned and listed at that link.
"you cannot make that statement with any confidence"
Ok, I'll make the statement with a lack of confidence. Feel better? We'll see what happens.
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.