Posted on 03/24/2005 3:29:58 PM PST by carl in alaska
Legal experts say that if Florida Gov. Jeb Bush defies state judge George Greer and orders state troopers to rescue Terri Schiavo, he and any other officials who participate in such a move risk a contempt citation from Greer that could put them in jail.
But with a powerful ally in the White House, Terri Schiavo's would-be rescuers have nothing to fear from the runaway judge.
In 2001, President Clinton pardoned drug dealers, international money launderers - even FALN terrorists, who were spared in a blatant bid to win votes for his wife's Senate campaign.
The episode taught a bewildered nation that the powers of the president to pardon anyone he wishes are absolute and irrefutable.
Today, Clinton is the most popular American politician in the world and his wife is the frontrunning candidate for her party's presidential nomination. In other words, the Pardongate scandal's lasting political fallout was nil.
He even pardoned his own brother, who had been convicted of selling cocaine.
Should Gov. Bush decide to rescue Terri Schiavo by force in violation of Judge Greer's order, President Bush could do the same for his brother - along with any other officials the right-to-die judge tries to punish.
Would there be controversy? You bet. Would the Bush family's political enemies try to capitalize? Absolutely.
But a nation that forgives one president for pardoning terrorists will certainly forgive another who uses his pardon power to save a life.
Once Terri Schiavo begins to receive the treatment she's been denied for more than a decade, her condition will almost certainly improve. Nurses who have cared for her have already testified she can speak and eat without a feeding tube, in stark contradiction of Judge Greer's findings.
Terri's recovery, however minimal, would serve as powerful evidence that the Bush brothers did the right thing in coming to her rescue.
In the meantime, the nation would be spared the haunting specter of its government starving an innocent citizen to death.
Setting aside the veracity of the affadavits, they are not 'new' as so many are claiming.
I know. Did you see post 172? 178?
People with taglines that invite obvious jabs should not be wasting the time of moderators. They've unfortunately learned to just remove whatever caused the bother and not try to explain what's going on to the people who are crying and don't understand.
That's what I usually do with my small children too. Makes life easier.
I do think one or two may have recently come out of the woodwork but for the most part, they are not new.
As well, on some thread, freepers found substantial problems with the seal affixed to affidavits and thought a few of the documents were forged.
There is one nurse, I've forgotten her name, Carly?, who did work as Terri's LPN and she was heard in 2002 by the COurt and found not credible. She was also fired by the nursing home for claiming (wrongly after an investigation) that a nurse was murdering patients.
Oh, hadn't heard that last part. If only everyone making these claims weren't just out there for their 15 minutes.
Well I don't know. I heard the interviews with the two nurses on the Sean Hannity show and they sounded credible to me. They answered his questions quickly with only one long pause to consider an answer. Also their testimony is consistent with Michael Schiavo's decision to kill Terri rather than turn her over to her family for care. That was an exceedingly cruel decision and cruelty is a behavior pattern in people. There's a lot going on in this case and I'm just starting to get this case figured out. I expect that the Schindlers will file a massive wrongful death lawsuit against M. Schaivo and his attorneys, and they will have no problem getting huge financial donations to pay for this lawsuit.
I would not assume that the investigation of the nurse was a fair and unbaisd investigation (not that you're making that assumption.)
"You do ill if you praise, but worse if you censure, what you do not understand." - Leonardo da Vinci
It seems there's more than enough misunderstanding on this thread to go around. You misunderstood my tagline, the mods and I misunderstood you were poking fun at the tagline... why don't we just let it go...
unbaisd = unbiased (geez, my typing is getting sloppy these days...)
I understood your tag line right away. You're referring to a previous troll who claimed to be ZOT proof. Geez...that was an easy one.
I'm a Christian but I'm sick and tired of hearing Christians say "ITS JUST GOD'S WILL FOR US CHRISTIANS TO JUST LET A RENEGADE RUNAWAY JUDGE MAKE MINCEMEAT OF MORALITY AND THE INALIENABLE RIGHT OF LIFE"
When's the time for CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE? When they COME TO GET YOU??
(insert comment about Judge Greer here)
OK, but in the future, people need to forget ancient threads and spend more time on comprehension of the current one (it doesn't help at all that the moderator deletes the harmless contextual posts). The point was originally not your tagline. It was the "drooling moron" tag. And I'm aware of the origins.
That doesn't mean it isn't ironic and worth a jab when someone is trying to be seriously authoritative and the post essentially ends with "...but I'm a drooling moron."
Then, since people still didn't get when I explained and your tag ends with "famous last words of a troll," I just said "OK, troll?" and then "Get it? Your tagline." so you might have an "Ahhhh... OK, Ha Ha, funny." moment and chill out. Instead you inexplicably went bonkers, calling moderators, friends and family.
But I'm cool with it myself. I think Terry Schiavo must have people on edge and stuff is going over their heads because of that.
This case just shows how vitally important it is to get good judges nominated and confirmed. No wonder liberals engage in vicious bare-knuckles fights to keep conservative judges out of the courts. We have to start street fighting too.
I also take your point about the founders not placing the preisdent in a trump position over the states.
I am still wondering about the nature of the judiciary versus the executive. Does "lawfulness" have to be what the last judge to rule says it is? I would have thought that the Governor would have had more power.
I do believe that the the Vth and XIVth Amendments' protection that "no person ...shall be deprived of life" with out due process of law" are being violated. So far the claim is that this is a civil case and the procees that is due is less than (1) proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all elements leading to the determination that a person is to be deprived of his life by state action; (2) jury trial; and the (3) right to be represented by counsel. It is only elevating form over substance to claim that Terri Schiavo is not entitled to those protections.
This is why the Congress is right to have passed the law to demand the de novo hearing; and the district court and the circuit court of appeals and the supreme court were wrong to see that vital federal constitutional rights were at stake of being deprived by state action without the process that case law has determined is "due" whenever the state is going to "take" a life.
This is why if the executive is empowered to act to enforce the constitution and the federal rights guaranteed thereunder, I would think that the executive should be able to act to protect those rights even if the courts have incorrectly construed those rights.
Of course, the issue is can the executive determine --for himself--that the court was wrong and that his oath to preserve protect and defend the constitution (not the judiciary) should trump the court orders.
[See National Review Online--Andrew McCarthy 3-25-05 for part of the above due process analysis. ]
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.