Posted on 03/20/2005 10:27:51 PM PST by paltz
It's absolutely sick and twisted that people would choose this woman's life as a sacrifice to misguided and factually wrong notions of federalism and republicanism.
As do I. Don't necessarily like anybody in this case after reading some more on it and feel for the poor woman most of all. But Scalia is exactly right. This is not the business of the national government
Probably unlike most of my co-conservatives, I happen to be somewhat opposed to term limits. I think voters are every so often granted the opportunity to turn their representatives out of office, and I don't that those who are doing a good job should necessarily be forced to leave purely on account of longevity. This holds true for all elected offices, as far as I'm concerned.
This is the main reason that "Campaign Finance Reform" was such a dumb idea, because of the built-in advantage it gives the incumbent, making it so much more difficult for the challenger to raise money.But that's probably exactly why it was instituted by McCain & Co. and so strongly backed by the MSM, who are given more power thru the act.
Under normal circumstances I would agree. But we are living in extra-ordinary times where the actions of liberal courts have already spelled disaster for the country. They have run rampant and unchecked for decades.
What other way is there for the nation to recover from the onslaught of the enemy within? What other way is there for the courts to be required to cease usurping congress? How often has Congress and the legislatures or the Executive branches intervened against the courts in the last 200 years? Once? Twice? Not a good track record for those we hire to protect our guarantees, is it?
The Executive Branch holds the key. It can refuse to enforce what it knows to be unrighteous rulings (not right in anyone's definition of common sense, logic and justice) or it can bow down to the royal black-robed liberal justices whose main agenda is to destroy the concept of self-rule, the rule of law, and the separation of powers.
So whether Congress is right or wrong is this instance, it least appears it is searching for its conscience -- something most of us believe it never had, and hopefully, something the judiciary will take note of as well.
In Terri's case, even at this late date I'm not all that certain that she has not been denied due process. Let's find out before we execute another innocent. I'll forgive the fedguv for acting and even erring on the side of caution.
Bingo. Dr. Chang diagnosed it, IIRC. ;-)
I'm starting to wrestle with this. I will probably never "completely" get it (other than from my own religious perspective and person who plays front and center in that), but I'm starting at the personal level.
I cannot conclusively state that I have personally, all by myself, ever saved any human's life. I may have; I can't know for sure. I think the closest may have been when my daughter got a chicken bone stuck in her throat, I had never heard of Heimlich at that time (60's), so I did a very wrong thing. I turned her upside down and held her by her feet and hit her on the back and the bone popped out. The paramedics could never have gotten there in time if I had waited.
There have been many other intances where I "helped", but I really don't know if the person would have been saved anyway.
I also have to take into consideration lives I jeopardized when I made some mistakes, like changing lanes without looking carefully enough if there was a car in my blind spot, running the car onto the shoulder of Highway 101. Nobody got hurt, but it isn't something you forget.
Or the time as a child we were pulling a wagon down a hill and I was supposed to be holding the wagon back from behind. My friend was in front pulling. We were too young to understand kinetic energy, etc. The wagon got away from us and flew into a busy street, and it was by the grace of God or luck, take your pick, that the oncoming traffic didn't hit my little sister and her little brother.
You kind of opened a can of worms. It's a good thing most peoples' lives didn't fall into my hands because I tend to panic and don't know too many life-saving procedures. I either scream for help or call 911 if I can now, and, of course pray.
I've thought of several things I should have handled differently. Fortunately the person did not die.
You're reading too much into it. It's just a precept about the value of human life. That when human life ceases to be valued all of humanity is doomed.
hmmmm, people who have signed onto a news website that allows them to anonymously post their opinions along with any articles and photos that support their opinions are "afraid to speak up"?
Thanks, I love to begin my day with a smile.
That makes it much simpler, and I'm content with your explanation. Sometimes I'm kind of dense. I hope it won't be used against me.
I wonder if it has come up on this forum. Not that they are necessarily related, but in a way they are. It did start with the disabled during the period the movie depicted.
Thank you for your input and affirmation. Sometimes, I'm gratified when people agree with me (which is seldom except in broad discussions), but that is probably an ego thing. I will work on it.
Did you ever hear of email? DUH!
A perfect answer. Kudos!
The EXACT same argument is use by the left to put an end to the death penalty. In both cases the act is legal ASSUMING the court system did what it is they were supposed to do. In both cases the argument is that "IF the court made a mistake" "THEN the death is not justified".
And NO I AM NOT saying that Terri is equivalent, to Joe Murderer. The whole point of the lefts argument is "WHAT IF the court made a mistake?" Is it worth the risk since death is permanent.
The precedents set here can and will turn around and bite back.
First off, Terri Schiavo hasn't even been tried, much less convicted, for any crime. Nor does she have any independent representation as would be constitutionally required in such a case.
Secondly, death penalty cases can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court; yet there was no federal appeal available at all for Terri Schiavo before passage of this law. Thus death row inmates had additional layers of protection against error that this innocent woman did not.
The answer to the liberals' protests is that the accused was given the right of counsel, the right to state his case, the right of a jury trial, and the right of appeal, all designed to ensure that no sentence is carried out injustly. Terri Schiavo has had none of those rights, not one. To extend federal appellate review alone is in my opinion an improvement but still inadequate; no one should be put to death by law except by decision of a jury of one's peers.
First part of your comment: Ditto.
Second part: There ya go. :)
Bump!
So, what's the answer?
'DUH'? Please tell my you're not 15.
FYI #393
just bumping this outstanding summary.
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.