Posted on 03/30/2005 5:22:03 PM PST by Crackingham
I don't understand..I thought the Federal and State courts were suppose to uphold the Right to Live as a Constitutional right....except under due process of law....any judge who thinks Michael Schiavo meets the criteria of someone who should have the right to decide her fate after he essentially abandoned her for 10 years must have been smoking something...What gives judges the right to refuse to uphold the Constitution...BTW, what gives this jackass the right to uphold Alambama's "right" to ban sex toys?...starvation good, sex toys bad...POSH!
No, you're not alone.
Don't any of you State Rights conservatives understand about the Constitutional RIGHT to live? Jack Kennedy sent in the National guard to protect the right of a black man to go to a State college in Mississipi....a "right" far less important and NO WHERE mentioned in the Constitution as explicitly as the Right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness...The Judicial system of this country needs to start enforcing the Preamble....if they don't send in the freakin' marrines....I also didn't see any of you "Constitutional " conservatives critisizing George Bush for an Unconstitutional war either.....
Judge Greer illegally took the dual role of trial court judge and surrogate decision maker for Terri Schiavo. This is explicitly forbidden by statute. The appellate court held that the considered such action by Greer as harmless, since they didn't see what a separate surrogate decision maker would have done differently, but it is not supposed to be the role of appellate courts to guess such things.
Terri's case was decided in a manner contrary to statute, ergo she did not receive due process of law.
No comment required, it said all we need to know about you.
=== and due process
This much should give folks pause if Greer's court and handling of the case constitutes the standard of "due process" by which a state court not only can deprive a person of life but -- further -- order that no water be administered during the starvation process and no pictures be taken to support the assertions of family and friends that Terri has been alert and responsive during the the past two weeks and has not dutifully slipped off like some beautiful and euphoric Sleeping Beauty as reported by Felos.
I'm having trouble pulling up the opinions. Only the denial of a rehearing comes up.
I'd really like to read the dissent of the ONE Republican who felt compelled to "send a message" that he opposed this, the longest execution (of an innocent human being) in this nation's history.
It means a lot to me that I am not castigated as a "fruitcake", "freak", you name it!
Huh...I am relieved!
We are a nation of arrogant judges who refuse to enforce the Constition and the Preamble...it doesn't matter if they are "conservative " or not...if they don't ...get them the ***** out of there!
As soon as the federal court rubber stamped Greer's ruling after Congress ordered a de novo hearing, I knew this had become about the power of the court, and not justice or the law.
One of my coworkers suggested that Congress should establish a traffic court somewhere in Middle of Nowhere, Alaska, and put the country's highest-paid traffic-court judges there.
...My ten-year old can understand this.
Why can't those on the bench do so??...
Because like a child who is not punished when they don't follow directions, they continue to disobey.
=== the DOI and the founding principles of this country as embodied in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The founding principles of this nation are found in its Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution -- a housekeeping document and framework for goverment -- was intended for interpretation always in light of those principles and "inalienable" rights enumerated in the Declaration.
There doesn't have to be...there ought to be enough compelling evidence one way or another applied to the case from both sides of a contested case where each side has a standing..M. Schiavo should have none(considering what he's done)...case closed...Sinkspur, you never cease to amaze me...Why you don't become a Dimmycrat, I'll never know...
Again, I feel like the tube should be in (that we should error on the side of life) - BUT, why your suggestion of due process not being fulfilled (from above) doesn't hold water....is that the State Court found in its decision that "Terri would not have wanted to be kept alive" - So, this is fulfilling her desires - (Agree with this judgment of what Terri would have wanted or not.....which I don't ....but that is why due process was followed within the law on this case - The State court is simply fulfilling what they saw as Terri's wish if left in this condition).
It's not a problem of liberal/conservative for many; it's judicial arrogance and the belief that they are the "supreme law of the land."
First, Scalia and Thomas may both be conservatives but they are in two different schools of thought.
Second, I think this decrying by this judge is not about Constitutional conservatism but about having the judiciary's unchallenged perch called into question. I believe it's gotten to the point where the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founding fathers and laid out in the Constitution is not the system we have today.
The last time I checked conservatives believed in morality and in doing the right thing. A smell test would immediately reveal that something is not quite right about the outcome of the Schiavo case.
=== I can not believe this blatant hypocrisy in the ranks of my Party!
The true hypocrisy comes where the courts in this instance are merely enforcing legislation which Jeb Bush signed in Florida ... very similar to the Futile Care Law which George Bush signed in Texas (giving sole discretion to the spouse, even, where exercise of the "right" to starve a family member to death -- legal in ALL 50 states -- is concerned).
But the more interesting hypocrisy is that of "strict constitutionalist" who appear to be playing the same damned shell game they played in 1970.
IT IS NEVER THE PURVIEW OF THE FED to enforce such laws, they said. FAR BE IT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to interfere with the states' individual purview over abortion, in particular, they cried. As they made the case for state-by-state abortion laws amounting to "economic discrimination" against the poor who could not afford travel to a state providing "healthcare" services.
They had to be careful with abortion just as they are being careful with euthanasia ... sending pro-abort Laura Bush (of the "secret smile" re: stem cells) out on the evening national news to argue that "LIFE" questions ought to be Federal questions.
Don't kid yourself ... overarching all the hypocrisy here is the notion that any of the GOP leadership are "pro-life" or are interested in anything but making certain Americans push for legalized lethal injections and sign their Living Wills.
Indeed.
You get an A+.
=== There is a reason that the Constitution was not designed to empower judges as legislators for life as they now are...
Are you serious?
How did Federal judges end up judges for life? I've always thought it strange they were.
Polls consistantly show MOST American agree with Judge Birch on this.
I can understand why Bush's poll numbers have hit a new low.
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.