Posted on 03/23/2005 3:43:40 PM PST by AZ_Cowboy
Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: 1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard), 2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms), and 3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).
So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it's against Americans.
In two of the three cases mentioned above, the Democrats' use of force was in direct contravention of court rulings. Admittedly, this was a very long time ago back in U.S. history when the judiciary was only one of the three branches of our government. Democratic Gov. Orval Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard expressly for purposes of defying rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts.
The decadent buffoon Bill Clinton sent armed agents from the INS to seize a small boy from an American family despite rulings by the majestic and infallible Florida courts granting custody of the boy to that very family.
None of these exercises of military force has gone down in history as a noble moment, but that's because of the underlying purpose of the force, not the fact that force was used.
To the contrary, what has gone down in history as a glorious moment for the republic was when President Dwight Eisenhower (Republican) called out military force of his own. In response to Gov. Faubus' abuse of the National Guard, Eisenhower simultaneously revoked Faubus' control of the National Guard and ordered the 101st Airborne Division to escort black students to school. (Minutes later, Democrats pronounced the Arkansas public schools a "hopeless quagmire" and demanded to know what Ike's exit strategy was.)
As important as it was to enforce the constitutional right to desegregated schools, isn't it also important to enforce Terri Schiavo's right to due process before she is killed by starvation?
Liberals' newfound respect for "federalism" is completely disingenuous. People who support a national policy on abortion are prohibited from ever using the word "federalism."
I note that whenever liberals talk about "federalism" or "states' rights," they are never talking about a state referendum or a law passed by the duly elected members of a state legislature or anything voted on by the actual citizens of a state. What liberals mean by "federalism" is: a state court ruling. Just as "choice" refers to only one choice, "the rule of law" refers only to "the law as determined by a court."
As a practical matter, courts will generally have the last word in interpreting the law because courts decide cases. But that's a pragmatic point. There is nothing in the law, the Constitution or the concept of "federalism" that mandates giving courts the last word. Other public officials, including governors and presidents, are sworn to uphold the law, too.
It would be chaotic if public officials made a habit of disregarding court rulings simply because they disagreed with them. But a practice borne of practicality has led the courts to greater and greater flights of arrogance. Sublimely confident that no one will ever call their bluff, courts are now regularly discovering secret legal provisions requiring abortion and gay marriage and prohibiting public prayer and Ten Commandments displays.
Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly incorrect ruling by a court. Any incorrect ruling will do, but my vote is for a state court that has ordered a disabled woman to be starved to death at the request of her adulterous husband.
Florida state court Judge George Greer last heard from when he denied an order of protection to a woman weeks before her husband stabbed her to death determined that Terri would have wanted to be starved to death based on the testimony of her husband, who was then living with another woman. (The judge also took judicial notice of the positions of O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson and Robert Blake.) The husband also happened to be the only person present when the oxygen was cut off to Terri's brain in the first place. He now has two children with another woman.
Greer has refused to order the most basic medical tests for brain damage before condemning a woman to death. Despite all those years of important, searching litigation we keep hearing about, Terri has yet to receive either an MRI or a PET scan although she may be allowed to join a support group for women whose husbands are trying to kill them.
Greer has cut off the legal rights of Terri's real family and made her husband (now with a different family) her sole guardian, citing as precedent the landmark "Fox v. Henhouse" ruling of 1893. Throughout the process that would result in her death sentence, Terri was never permitted her own legal counsel. Evidently, they were all tied up defending the right to life of child-molesting murderers.
Given the country's fetishism about court rulings, this may be a rash assumption, but I presume if Greer had ordered that Terri Schiavo be shot at her husband's request a more humane death, by the way the whole country would not sit idly by, claiming to be bound by the court's ruling because of the "rule of law" and "federalism." President Bush would order the FBI to protect her and Gov. Bush would send in the state police.
What was supposed to be the "least dangerous" branch has become the most dangerous literally to the point of ordering an innocent American woman to die, and willfully disregarding congressional subpoenas. They can't be stopped solely because the entire country has agreed to treat the pronouncements of former ambulance-chasers as the word of God. The only power courts have is that everyone jumps when they say "jump." (Also, people seem a little intimidated by the black robes. From now on we should make all judges wear lime-green leisure suits.)
President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The court's ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived.
If Gov. Jeb Bush doesn't say something similar to the Florida courts that have ordered Terri Schiavo to die, he'll be the second Republican governor disgraced by the illiterate ramblings of a state judiciary. Gov. Mitt Romney will never recover from his acquiescence to the Massachusetts Supreme Court's miraculous discovery of a right to gay marriage. Neither will Gov. Bush if he doesn't stop the torture and murder of Terri Schiavo.
Ann's never been wrong, yet. But there are people who are waiting for her to miss one.
I'm not among them.
God help Terri because, aside from Gov. Bush, it appears as though no one else will.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a republican congressman or senator to show some balls; or to take a hit for a moral cause. It's much easier for them to sit back and offer verbose oration about how they are standing for life....but to actually DO some type of bold action like send in the police????? Well that would take something the republicans simply don't have. But I sure and the hell wish they did!
I dont know why, but I really didn't pay attention to this story much until recently, I just couldn't believe they were going to let her just die.
I watched my Dad die slowly from Alzhiemers/Dementia, and there was no way I was going to smother him with a pillow/slip him a toxic cocktail/shoot him to make him die earlier just because he wasn't going to get better.
At the worst, we would have sedated him to die painless from whatever was killing him at the moment. He was on a DNR from the day he went in anyways, we knew he was never going to get better, so, letting him die from whatever was killing him was bad enough.
But to actually create some situation where we would be the source and control of what would eventually kill him, that would be murder.
He was not some flame thrower victim in combat who would not survive the trip to sick bay because of 100% burns, he was not injured with all limbs broken and bleeding profusely 100 miles from civilization and putting him out of his misery, he was in a nursing home/hospital.
So is Terry Schiavo.
Taking out the feeding tube is murder, and her husband plans to profit from it. I am privately convinced he has movie deals, book deals already in the works detailing "his" pain and suffering.
And that is all this is. HIS suffering he is worried about. I know it personnaly, I was relieved my father died last August because it meant I would not have to go see him like that and it meant my Mother would not have to go and see him die every day she went and did his laundry and feed him and bathe him like she did. It took away her pain of seeing him suffer. And that means more to me than my Dad's suffering because he was going to die, she is quite well and alive and has to carry on without him. I pitied her and was thankful he died so she didn't have to suffer watching him die.
JEB Bush needs to declare a state emergency, activate the National Guard and go inside that hospice and take her out and give her to her parents.
If she dies later, naturally, it would still be the right thing to do.
One more for your collection,AZ
Drudge has slipped into insignificance. Blogs have run past him.
THANK YOU for not forgetting the MANDATORY requirement on all Ann Coulter threads!!!!!
Starved for justice (ANN COULTER re: Schiavo)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1369192/posts
"Florida state court Judge George Greer last heard from when he denied an order of protection to a woman weeks before her husband stabbed her to death determined that Terri would have wanted to be starved to death based on the testimony of her husband, who was then living with another woman. (The judge also took judicial notice of the positions of O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson and Robert Blake.) The husband also happened to be the only person present when the oxygen was cut off to Terri's brain in the first place. He now has two children with another woman."
Unless you're joking, it's Matt Drudge. In fact, even if you aren't, it's still Matt Drudge.
ping
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1369199/posts
It will make you cry, Tonk.
...and also complain about the liberation of 50 million Iraqis and saving the life of one innocent Florida woman.
(keep in mind that Ann's a more-than-able attorney in her own right)
>> Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly incorrect ruling by a court.
Forget it, Ann. Our elected officials are a bunch of wimps who prefer others (e.g., judges) make the hard decisions. That said, all three branches are corrupt beyond hope, and it will take a revolution stop the tyranny.
Thanks for the ping. I've been waiting all week to hear from Ann on this.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Thank you for that post. Ann & Laura, my heros! Ann is spot on with this one! I laughed and cried though her column.
I fear the "Republican Party" is a fantasy that differs from reality and we are seeing a spineless trend that will continue...
She is The best....a gutter fighter (and we all need more)...But still the best!!!
Bullseye! Stand up to these jackass judges and take some action.
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.