Replies

I don't have any pull with Jim Robinson. It would really be great, if we could talk Jim into leading it.
He's probably more familiar with your tag, since you started some of the Daily threads. Also, like others, my organizational skills are lacking, but if some of us get together, I think we could accomplish something.

First, we need a vision statment. I had two things, I wanted to see:

1) a law passed to protect the disabled.
2) an investigation

Both of these would need to be expanded.
For instance on the first one, we need to expand it to include some of the things some of us have already identified:
a) Look at the House Bill for protecting the disabled
b) We need to look at "what is due process in the case of the disabled". As it stands now, one judge can condemn someone to die that is disabled. This is outrageous. A criminal is given a jury trial and the courts bend over backwards to protect his rights.
c) how so we get "due process" changed. For criminals this had been interpreted by the courts with actual cases, such as the right to a speedy trial, etc. Do we need an amendment to change "due process for the disabled" or can it be done in a bill? Seems like a bill would be good enough, since they can pass things like advance directives without any problem. An amensment would take a long time.
d) Talk to the consitutional attorneys that have spoken out for Terri to look at helping us pass a bill/amendment and how to make it foolproof ( or should I say Judgeproof).
e)would be nice to get Mel on Board, as spokesman.

We may want to add two more vision statements:
3) End judicial tyranny.
4) Make congress and the President take back the powers invested in them.

I guess these would have to be voted on or something. I would back all four. There may be other points we would want to add. But I think we would have a better chance of getting something accomplished if we limited what we want to do.

We could formulate a vision statement in our new activist thread.

Wonderful, wonderful thoughts FR_Addict.

"Talk to the conditional attorneys that have spoken out for Terri to look at helping us pass a bill/amendment and how to make it foolproof ( or should I say Judgeproof)."

There was Jay Sekulow (Sp?) and one other whose name I could never seem to catch. On Hannity, he was particularly sympathetic to Terri's parents and said he couldn't as a parent, imagine this being done to his child. They are BOTH excellent and have a GOOD knowledge of the law.

Mel Gibson would be an EXCELLENT spokesman, I totally agree. He is sharp and surprisingly articulate. Also, Patricia Heaton.

I would probably make goals one and two equal. That is my humble suggestion.

Limiting the power of judges is an excellent goal. We might be taking on enough with goals one and two, I don't know.

It must a coalition across the board of conservatives, and supporters of Terri in the middle and on the left. This cannot be perceived as an effort on the part of people on the religious right ONLY or it will FAIL. That would be my strongest point.

It should be an open endeavor and everyones opinions and ideas should be encouraged. No person or group should feel alienated or left out.