Replies

I guess you did not click the link for the full article.

In capital cases, for example, the law requires a federal review of a state court death penalty conviction. In such cases, the government is seeking to kill someone on behalf of the people. In the Schiavo case, a private guardian (a husband) was seeking permission to fulfill his wife's wishes, as determined by the state court of Florida. Yes, there is a difference, one that has been recognized in law and tradition.

No. If he sought permission to kill his wife, that would be one thing. Instead he got the court to do it FOR him. Its a novel departure from law and tradition. That's what has people upset along with the courts refusal to take a look at an act of judicially mandated homocide.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

"In capital cases, for example, the law requires a federal review of a state court death penalty conviction. In such cases, the government is seeking to kill someone on behalf of the people. In the Schiavo case, a private guardian (a husband) was seeking permission to fulfill his wife's wishes, as determined by the state court of Florida. Yes, there is a difference, one that has been recognized in law and tradition."

That argument will NOT fly, because in Schiavo's case, there was ALSO a law---passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. It only applied to one person, but it IS a law. It is well past time to reign in the "Men in Black".

Cohen is mistaken.

The law applies to any government taking of life, taking of liberty, and taking of property.

Government must have a compelling interest in any of these cases.

Yet, we can set that aside, for now, because the parents' attorney's were not up to the appeals tasks on several occasions, recently, and all along, back through the histories of many proceedings.

Leaving, the matter of the Congress and its act, which it did well in accordance with its Constitutional authority to control the federal courts. The Congress has the power to adjust the jurisdiction of all the federal courts. The Congress has the power to decide what types of cases may be heard and by what courts. The Congress has the power to remove judges, etc.

The Congress did not break any laws.

The leftists and their liberal allies, are instead very worried about the Congress using its power to reign in the Judiciary.

So, in the same manner that the Clintons' tried to strike fear into the country, by claiming that the Impeachment of "President" Clinton was a "coup" and "attempting to reverse the election" and "trying to make a new Parliamentary Government" --- none of which was true --- now comes the same leftists and their liberal allies again.

Now, another bogus series of cries, such as misrepresenting the act of Congress to be "judicial activism."

As you know, the leftists and their liberal allies will cluck mightily, and the cacaphonus echo will grow to crisis proportions, because the leftists and their liberal allies "legal experts" are all left-wing-nut judicial activists with TV "face time" guaranteed by the liberal media; and Cohen is just such a nut.

In capital cases, for example, the law requires a federal review of a state court death penalty conviction. In such cases, the government is seeking to kill someone on behalf of the people. In the Schiavo case, a private guardian (a husband) was seeking permission to fulfill his wife's wishes, as determined by the state court of Florida. Yes, there is a difference, one that has been recognized in law and tradition.

Both laws don't protect the innocent.