"For those of us in the grassroots, troubled by Terri Schiavo's impending demise and the courts' complicity in it, roll up your sleeves. The fight has only begun."
Finally - somebody is saying what I have been saying for years and years.
I'm in!
Unfortunately, implementing such reasoning depends upon having a spine and testicles, neither of which are common among Republicans.
Payback is going to be a Hillary. I can't wait to exact some revenge for this.
Very interesting article!
Every bill should contain a clause that takes it outside the power of the judiciary beneath the Supreme Court to review for constitutionality.
Or we should have a single bill passed that removes constitutional review of congressional acts from lower court review.
I'm not real certain that SCOTUS has a power of constitutional review. Some find an implied power, but if there is debate, why compound that by included lower courts in it?
This is a fight that is long overdue. But why did the Republicans wait for Terri's case to fire the first shot? It is, in my opinion, a mistake to have waited so long.
The Dems and MSM have been very effective in pushing the notion that the Republicans are playing politics and interfering with personal decisions. The MSM has utilized the following misconceptions 1)Terri is in a coma or on life support (respirator); 2)Terri left a living will; and 3) Terri's family is in full agreement that she would not want to be kept alive in this condition. Add to this a fake "Republican Talking Points" memo and the MSM has a bonanza on its hands. Oh, also add the daily dosage of the "Republicans are Hypocrits" stories and it gets even better.
The emotion and misconceptions carried along with this case have made it easy to demagogue. The Republicans better get their acts together and come out on the offensive PDQ.
How do we motivate our elected Congressional leaders to
act according to the US Constitution.IMO the Bush babies
chose to bow before the men in black rather than honor their Constitutional powers and Oath of Office. Joseph Story said in "A Familiar Exposition on the Constitution of
the United States(from the 1859 original) that the powers of
the Judiciary were intended to be "co-extensive" to those of the Legislative branch. I Nothing I have read is the
power of the Judiciary purported to trump all other.
and even Marbury v.Madison-that construct of the Court did not DARE say what too many Judges have bleieved too long-
That Constitution is what they say it is.Marbury clearly says The Constitution is"an instrument as a rule for the government of courts,as well as of the Legislature."How else
could it be Supreme Law of the Land?
Bump.
We are living in a judicial oligarchy, not a representative republic. Those who do not realize that have not been paying attention the past few weeks. The courts sentenced an innocent woman to death; trampled on the Constitution; rendered the House, Senate, Governor and President impotent; among other things. If you think the courts cannot affect you the same way, don't look now, but there is a Judge Greer in every community. I have totally lost faith in my country -- a country that would allow such tyranny. I hope I never have to step inside a courtroom. I know justice will not be served.
I've seen this so many times over the past few days -- see the current sidebar poll for another example -- I have to speak out.
It's "reined in," as in the reins on a horse.
"Reigning" is what federal judges have been doing far too long (with Congress's tacit approval).
Congress has no power to control Judge Greer. He is not a federal judge. All they can do is limit federal courts, not state courts.
Who will rein in Congress? Who will rein in the Executive Branch when the wrong people are in power? Who will rein in the federal government and allow the states to run their own affairs as was always intended?
Ping for later.
Logically correct, but it contains a jarring error that is far too common. "Reign", "rein", and "rain" are homonyms, not synonyms. And their derivatives retain the separateness of their meanings, a situation abused more than once in this article.
"Reigning in" is nonsensical. To reign is to rule or preside, however benignly or despotically. This might seem to apply to the judicial arrogation of power being described, but the phrase actually evokes the metaphor referenced below.
"Reining in" would refer literally to the act of controlling an animal, such as a horse, that is pulling or carrying a burden, by means of a rein or halter. Based on the metaphorical parallel, this was the proper word choice above.
And rain, of course, falls from above. It might be the gentle drops of a Spring shower, the fury of a storm, or even the death and destruction of war. The current issue of our local newsletter uses the same mistaken word with this intended meaning, in 243 copies. Arrgh!
Did you get a court order to post this? How dare you question our judicial overlords? You will be reported for committing a thought crime.
I think the court's wilingness to flout the rule of law and rule along liberal ideological lines in the Schiavo case will galvanize the GOP to finally get serious about the judiciary.
Time to get back to the way things were meant to be.