President Bush was asleep, came out in hallway, signed Schiavo bill and went back to bed

Drudge Report ^ | March 21, 2005

[RWR8189]

Q Can you go over what went on last night, in terms of the President signing the bill and how it went down?

MR. McCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE: Sure. I guess the bill -- the House passed it shortly after midnight, and then the President signed it at 1:11 a.m., in the morning. The Staff Secretary, Brett Kavanaugh, walked the legislation over to the residence for the President to sign. He came outside his bedroom and signed it in the residence.

Q Had he been asleep?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, he was woken up after it was passed, when it was ready to be signed.

Q I heard you describe it earlier, he came out of his bedroom and literally signed it standing up in the hall; is that how it went/

MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct, yes. He was just standing in the hall in the residence an signed the legislation then.

Q Was he wearing --

Q Is it safe to assume he wasn't wearing a suit and tie at the time? (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going into that much detail. Yes, he cleaned up, put on his suit -- (laughter.)

END

[T.Smith]

All of that didn't make it a priority, it made it a farce.

[agrace]

How so?

[stanz]

I have more respect for this president than ever before (and you know to what lengths we all went for him in the past.)
Wonder what Bill Clinton or Flip-flop would have done?

[T.Smith]

The entire congress assembling in the middle of the night? The president being awaken to sign "emergency legislation"? All of this while congress is unable to pass any sort of SS legislation whatsoever? All of this to reverse a decision that has been upheld up 19 judges? That makes it a farce.

[YaYa123]

You have to wonder where the presidential staff secretary would have found Bill Clinton in the middle of the night!

[Alouette]

If you don't like Schiavo threads don't read them!!!

[agrace]

You're right. They should have done it before the tube was removed. That way they could have taken their time a bit more.

[Grampa Dave]

[ThreePuttinDude]

HERE HERE

[Bushforlife]

Your post NEEDED deletion. It is fair and right that the lion share of talk on this site these days is full of concern over the fate of this innocent disabled woman being starved to death.

One day we may be disabled. God willing, we we all be old. These issues may have much greater consequences for you then.

[Republicus2001]

The Party of Death (Dumbocrats)

[Let's Roll]

I've been seeing this as one more nail in the coffin of judicial activism for quite awhile now.

[lonevoice]

I don't know if you've noticed the poll on the main page of the news/activism forum? 2,129 FReepers having cast votes, and 75% of them approve of the federal intervention into the Shiavo case. Given that, and that the young lady is still at this moment being starved to death, it sure looks like 3/4's of the people using this forum are vitally interested in this issue.

[Atlas Sneezed]

That's kind of an ironic picture. I seem to remember everyone wanting Elian's father not to have any rights. And now everyone WANTS the parents to the rights.

---

I don't recall Elian being married. Your comment might apply if he were.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

"Liberals want death on demand..."

and on "command" as well.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I said last week (and was ridiculed for the statement though I explained the hyperbole) that if we allow this judge's action to transpire, the soul of America comes under the same dark cloud as other "evil empires."

It was hyperbolic. But the point is that this is in fact the camel's nose under the tent. If we allow the state to define a 'valuable' life (eventually meaning productive), and then condone state-sanctioned (assisted) termination of life, we join the Nazis and Soviets in government-sanctioned euthanasia. Once we allow that, life is neither sacred nor safe.

ALL other rights and liberties and all other issues regarding the individual vs. the state are IRRELEVANT if we do not first cherish and protect life.

This is the reason the Right to Life movement chose that as their name. If people do not first have the right to live, then all other rights (such as "choice") are irrelevant.

Though we have not arrived at state-sanctioned abortion, extremists on the left have already mentioned as a means of population control.

If they are successful and if we allow state-sanctioned termination, we have become in toto the property of the state. When the elderly become a drain on the state, they can then legally be terminated. And that type of policy can easily be expanded to include those who are not productive or whose opinions interfere with productivity. And before anyone flames me for being over-the-top (that can't happen here), the beauty of American liberty is that in a government of self-rule by the people, we can make policy based upon logical projections. This is why we are so successful and free, unlike collectivist-run States, where they can only react moment by moment to changes. This being the case, it is far safer for liberty to err on the side of protecting and valuing all life.

[youngtory]

LOL

[Mamzelle]

I've been watching Fox today. Did you see Ackerman and the Dems on O'Reilly? The retired lawyers and judges who weighed in? Do you see the level of "smug" here?

The judiciary to America--"We run things around here. The Congress, the Senate, the Executive...they have nothing to say. We hold the power of life and death."

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

No, I'm working (though seized by the moment).

This certainly is an important issue. It is the legislature (the people) vs. the judiciary. Which is part of the reason why the Left is weighing in so heavily in letting her die. It has nothing to do with life and death and everything to do with them maintaining a tyrannic control over the Executive and Legislative branches through the judiciary.

Judicial activism was the silent revolution to end all silent revolutions. We woke up one day and realized that we are ruled by black robes.

This could be the case to reverse that tide and it could also be the case needed to get President Bush to appoint constitutionalist judges to all benches and ram it through both houses. I hope he uses the momentum.

[RightWhale]

Oh, there you are. This Schiavo consideration is the most important thing the country has considered since the Iraq invasion. Maybe even more important than that. We are setting the course for our future as human beings in a civilized State. If something is more important to the country, what would it be? Any suggestions?