Posted on 03/29/2005 3:30:56 PM PST by ninenot
Blindly followng any law as an end pursuit is foolish.
The "Rule of Law" does not mean squat when it fails to protect and defend innocent life. Apart from that object "Rule of Law" is "Three Empty Words."
bttt
I was just going to make the same observation.
I never expected it to. But perhaps some other people are reading this thread who aren't willing to throw it all away over one case in Florida.
Actually is is clear. Congress has the authority to issue subpoenas and the executive has the authority to compel attendence. There is, so far as I know, no limit on whom Congress can subpeona because there is no authority to prevent their consideration of legislation of any kind they desire.
It is also painfully clear that neither Congress nor the Administration had the backbone to follow through because of political considerations.
Please quit blaming the courts for not reaching beyond the pleading filed by Gibbs.
Oh come on. Courts often go beyond the presented arguments for the reasoning of their decisions. I wouldn't call it routine, but it is certainly not uncommon. If ever there was a case calling for it, this was it. The courts had been directed to perform de novo review of this case WRT Terri's constitutional rights. This court showed no deference to the intent of the law whatsoever. We live in a judicial tyranny - the consent of the governed is dead.
The problem with ignoring this as just one case in Florida is with the way our legal system works. Everything is tied to precedent. This case sets a precedent that should be frightening. What if some father decides to use this case to fight to terminate the life of his retarded child?
That said, I will always wonder what would have happened if the family lawyer had filed for the de novo hearing provided for in the Federal law instead of trying to argue the case on grounds that were not covered in that law.
Frankly, I think he is as bad as some of the most Liberal judges. He will not use law to help Schiavo, but he will not enforce it on immigration matters.
Sounds like AG Gonzales was the only one in the Republican ranks that believed is states' rights.
Kudos Mr. Gonzales!
Too bad you are surrounded by Republican'ts that act like Democrats.
He was definitely conspicuous by his absence. Too bad - I had hoped for better things from him.
Then it's a shame that he and so many others conveniently forget about individual rights.
Heard less than one minute of Sean this afternoon so I cannot cite the context but he was speaking to Jesse Jackson about the Florida legislature and claimed that it was REPUBLICANS at fault for the bill not passing.
And before I forget, to tie this back to the article, why didn't AG Gonzales send a top team to make arguments in the case? I can think of several arguments that no judge could legitimately dismiss as unworthy of scrutiny in a few hours.
Clearly Gonzales didn't want to get involved. It's both fair and right to blast him for it.
Don't you all realize that it is the courts that should be interpreting the law and it's applications. It's checks and balances. It's sad that Congress had to intervene, and Gonzalez was just telling them that Congress interfering isn't very legal. Emotions shouldn't overrun sound principles. Hold the judges and courts responsible for bad decisions, not Congress, or the Governor, or the President, because it isn't their fault or even their problem to deal with. We all hate judges who legislate from the bench, so I think the judges (and AG) have every right to hate legislatures judiciating from the capitol.
None of the courts in this case have legislated new "rights" or laws in this case. There may have been some bad findings of FACT, but the courts didn't grant Michael Schiavo any new rights that I can see. The right to remove the tube was created in the Florida code by Florida legislators.
Admittedly, the right to remove the tube was first found by the Florida Supreme Court, but I don't think it was in the Schiavo case. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I was hardly following this case in the late 1990s. It was after that decision that the Florida lawmakers put it into the Code.
After that point, there hasn't been judicial activism that I can discern. We may not like the decisions in this case, but that doesn't make it rise to a precedent.
Well, of course. I mean Democrats are jumping all over themselves to help Terri. I mean, we have both Joe Lieberman and Jesse Jackson to name ALL of them.
That's why we should turn against Republicans because they only made special efforts to go as far as they thought they legally could. Why not make them pay?
Would any of us want to implore our legislators to change the laws taking guardianship away from spouses and giving the right to parents and/or siblings instead?
...he's probably doing valet' parking for the local La Raza meeting.
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.