Posted on 03/29/2005 11:00:33 AM PST by EternalVigilance
Well .. their arguments are illogical. I've given up - there is no changing their pre-conceived agenda.
And .. it's so much easier to blame the Bush brothers.
I posted this on a thread and everyone ignored. Seems no one can find the two Senators that Jackson said he flipped!
Look what I found from a Tampa TV Station (ABC):
Though he could not recall specifically whom he talked to, Jackson said he had called five state senators Tuesday morning in an effort to convince them to once again take up legislation that would allow Terri's life-sustaining feeding tube to be reinserted.
And from Channel 8:
One of those contacted by Jackson, Democratic state Sen. Gary Siplin, said he told Jackson the issue had been "thoroughly discussed." Senate Democratic leader Les Miller added, "I have voted. It's time to move on."
Excuse me .. what about the decisions of the husband and the judge - I sure hope they will have severe consequences to their actions - seeing as how the judge ORDERED her death.
Somehow no one seems to believe anybody is guilty except Jeb Bush - so I give up - have a good life beliving whatever you want.
Inalienable rights yes but for the life of me I can't seem to find these inalienable rights in the Bill of Rights. I see limitations against the national government, and wait yes I see the Tenth Amendment. I know the history of Republicans and how much you hate that little one but what does it say again? 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' And for the life of me, I don't see determining where life ends and death begins listed as a power of the national government in the Constitution.
Please also don't point to the 14th either. She was afforded due process, as the unConstitutitional Republican action to move it to the federal system confirmed time and time again in multiple courts.
Your claim that this is somehow a usurpation by the federal government is specious and silly
Specious and silly? What do you not understand about these two statements?
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
---------------------
While I agree with the Court's analysis today, and therefore join in its opinion, I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide - including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life-and-death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable.
I assert only that the Constitution has nothing to say about the subject. To raise up a constitutional right here, we would have to create out of nothing (for it exists neither in text nor tradition) some constitutional principle whereby, although the State may insist that an individual come in out of the cold and eat food, it may not insist that he take medicine; and although it may pump his stomach empty of poison he has ingested, it may not fill his stomach with food he has failed to ingest. Are there, then, no reasonable and humane limits that ought not to be exceeded in requiring an individual to preserve his own life? There obviously are, but they are not set forth in the Due Process Clause. What assures us that those limits will not be exceeded is the same constitutional guarantee that is the source of most of our protection - what protects us, for example, from being assessed a tax of 100% of our income above the subsistence level, from being forbidden to drive cars, or from being required to send our children to school for 10 hours a day, none of which horribles is categorically prohibited by the Constitution. Our salvation is the Equal Protection Clause, which requires the democratic majority to accept for themselves and their loved ones what they impose on you and me. This Court need not, and has no authority to, inject itself into every field of human activity [497 U.S. 261, 301] where irrationality and oppression may theoretically occur, and if it tries to do so, it will destroy itself.
One statement is by the 'Father of the Constitution' James Madison from Federalist #45, the other by a conservative Justice on SCOTUS whose statement was used in the Wolfson report to Gov. Bush. So James Madison and Justice Scalia agree. Let's see James Madison, Anton Scalia, the aspect of federalism.....or your statement with no foundation.
Your claim that this is somehow a usurpation by the federal government is specious and silly.
It's not a claim, it's a statement of fact that has support from the highest court in the land as well as one of the Framers. But hey what could they know against the opinion of the illustrious Alan Keyes? You offer such a 'strong' argument, I just don't know....nah, I honor the Republic and the ideals the Framers established, not a government run on emotional whims with no Constitutional foundations and questionable faith based foundation to boot
Hmmm, does Google not work on your computer? I found those documents through a quick search on Google. I would suggest before you comment on what the judge may have or may not have done in his decision it would be wise to actually read the decision instead of taking the word of so many 'conservatives'?
BTW, I see you're advocating the impeachment of Judge Greer. Now as he was upholding a prior decision from the Florida Supreme Court and not acting as an 'activist' judge, are you planning to impeach all judges that uphold precedent or just the ones whose decisions you don't like?
Oh my gosh - a sane person! I had about given up. LOL!!
Great posts on this thread, C/A.
Guilty of what?
He just made a decision that was purely his prerogative to make.
He earned it by being elected Governor of Florida and no but him has to deal with the consequences of that decision.
All the best to him.
It's like the old saying, 'You can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned in to.'
That has serious tag potential. : )
Thanks! I'm worn out too. There's just no changing the minds of people who already have an agenda and don't want to hear the truth.
Thanks for your comments.
That conclusion is based on my knowledge of how county sheriffs operate in this country. They take orders through a chain of command and their job is to follow their orders using pre-established procedures. The county sheriffs would be subject to disciplinary action if they did not follow instructions to enforce the court orders from the state judge. That said, it's impossible to predict exactly what would happen in a confrontation between state and local police. That's the point--a lot of different scenarios are possible and some of them end in violence.
Judge Greer has sealed many of the court records. Why don't you google that?
I repeat we are not privy to all the court documents.
There are a lot of judges in Florida that need to be off the bench. It has nothing to do with whether they are popular with the public. We have 2 dea kids in less than a year because of sex offenders getting to skate.
There is a reason why state laws are written in simple English.
dea=dead
The court authorized it to proceed. The court made the decision.
You miss out that the ruling is not based on Schiavo wanting to kill her. It is based upon Terri Schiavo not wanting to live in such a state.
The court is ordering the removal for Terri Schiavo, according to the court, in accordance with her wishes and as such is speaking for her.
Because it is her decision, according to the court, Michael Schiavo does not have a say in it. He is authorized to proceed. He is not authorized to decide or change his mind or do anything else.
I know this is beyond your understanding.
Schiavo is ordered to "cause the removal of nutrition and hydration from the ward" at 1 PM march 18, 2005.
The court ordered him to do it.
Then we wouldn't get along at all! Regards..
Yes, in our system, the state does have the power (I hesitate to use the term "right" here) to execute citizens that are not guilty--safe to say, it probably happens all the time. This is one of the reasons (among many) that I am against the death penalty.
Some years ago, there was a case in the supreme court that was about whether a person who had exhausted all of his appeals could get a new trial when new evidence of his innocence surfaced--the supreme court said no--it wasn't good enough. The constitution requires due process--that's it, the court said. In fact, in a speech not long after that case, Scalia said something like the following (and I'm quoting from memory here): "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."
Again, I'm anti-death penalty--I don't think it should exist, but if you look at the law, it requires due process; that's it. In one sense, Scalia is exactly right. In another, he's horribly wrong. But he's right on the law and wrong on the policy--and it's not the job of a judge to make policy. That's the legislature. Florida should change its laws, but we can only follow the laws that we've got now, for better or for worse.
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.