Posted on 03/30/2005 5:22:03 PM PST by Crackingham
No, there are plenty of dolts who are unfamiliar with Article 3, the DOI and the founding principles of this country as embodied in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Judge Bork made it quite clear that what Congress did was emninently constitutional and with precedent. But Judge Bork is familiar with Article 3.
This is the only one I've ever seen that ended up in dispute.
If you want to know about "private bills" ask your Congressman.
>>>You are right on target. Due process has obviously been followed, as the numerous reviews up and down the state and federal judiciaries clearly show.>>>
You are niave if you feel that this case has actually been give 'review'. How can a judge 'review' a 8 year old court case and make a decision in a matter of a couple of hours?
If this is due process, God help us all.
Guess somebody must have pushed this judge's button. They are beginning to find out we now have an internet. For years they have been able to overstep their bounds, make law and eluded the scrutiny of the ordinary folk out here. Lights hurt their eyes as well as their egos. I always heard due process was just plain fairness and MS got none from them.
>>> Said this case is not unique and the judges needed to rule on the law not emotions. >>>
Too bad they didn't in this case. They ignored a law they didn't like, that is overstepping their bounds.
Not at all.
Not according to Thomas Jefferson, but then his interpretation of the Constitution is not the one the courts favor. They claim Marshall's as definitive. I prefer Jefferson's. According to his perspective the legislature and executive branches have every right to curtail, even ignore judicial rulings and should when the courts overstep their boundaries.
And, lord almighty, where does a two-bit probate judge get to sit like Caesar, issuing thumbs-up or thumbs-down, with unreviewable decisions on life and death?
The Legislative and Executive Branches get regular reinforcement of their power by the will of the people-- the Judiciary seems to keep forward momentum on pomposity alone.
I think what must of us are asking is that justice (judges) be able to apply wisdom to a case (see I Kings 2:10-12, 3:3-14) for an example of judicial wisom as applied by King Solomon.
The response to his Rooker citation was devastating: "Rooker did not establish a constitutional (or even prudential) bar to federal review of final state court decisions; instead, it recognized a statutory [IE: written by congress] bar to such review."
As Nick noted above, at least he's saying what the other judges were too 'demure' to say out loud: they won't follow the law and give a de novo hearing- they just 'go through the motions'.
I don't think Terri would have won her federal case, but she should have had the chance this law gave her to try.
The fundamental law of the United States:
U.S. Constitution
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The fundamental law of the State of Florida, which Jeb Bush swore to uphold, and refuses to use his Executive power to enforce against an out-of-control judiciary:
SECTION 2. Basic rights.--All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.
My ten-year old can understand this.
Why can't those on the bench do so??
Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
>>Yet, in Wednesday's 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to deny a rehearing to Schiavo's parents, Birch went out of his way to castigate Bush and congressional Republicans for acting "in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for governance of a free people - our Constitution."
He might be 'conservative", but he is stupid as dirt. The Founding Fathers never envisioned a mere judge overruling a constitutionally-sound law of the state legislature - a law, in this situation, that empowers the law enforcement branch of the state to take protective custody of anyone being abused or in imminent danger of being harmed. The arrogant judge Greer totally ignored this state law -- even threatened the state law enforcement branch (e.g., the Governor) with comtempt if an attempt was made to enforce the law. The equally arrogant, and completely brain-dead, Stanley F. Birch, Junior, need to get his head out of his butt. Meanwhile, Jeb Bush needs to get a set of cahones and arrest Judge Greer for abuse of the disabled.
It would help if the state courts would actually review cases where a life is at stake instead of taking any decision a lower court makes as gospel and reviewing only the bureaucratic procedural typing of the briefs. If the state is going to grant a license to kill a non-dying individual (roughly, to provide immunity from prosecution for murder, even by neglect), then it is obligated to evaluate the logic, reasoning and evidence used by the State in the case before the considerable and irreversable procedure is undertaken.
And certainly have more responsibility of review in cases with as many questionable details (such as "really, Judge, I SWEAR she wanted to be killed, really, no foolin'") as this one has.
Is "Contempt of Court" still a crime when the courts have convincingly demonstrated that they are worthy of nothing except contempt?
If I'm not mistaken....these justices ruled on the appeal....Appeals deal with procedure and due process....(not with retrying the facts of a case) - Therefore these justices found no role for the federal court to over rule a State court decision where both sides were provided equal procedures and due process to bring their case (it just so happens that those on Terri's side presented a terrible case).
The King has no clothes!
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.