Jeb Bush - Damned if you do - Damned if you don't

March 30, 2005 | watchdog_writer

[watchdog_writer]

I really don't blame Jeb for this, but he did sign the rule including food/hydration withdrawl as life support.

I'm not familiar with the "rule" your taking about. Do you have a citation?

[ARCADIA]

he fails to honor the rule of law, and he disregards the fact that while we can question Judge Greer’s decision, his was a court of competent jurisdiction. The parties were given due process according to each and every judge who considered the case

You don't get the big picture do you? When the judicial system, as a branch of government, fails to enforce the law of the land, according to the judgment of either the legislature, or the executive office. Then either of those branches can act to restraint the Judicial Branch. That is what separation of power is all about. It is not about whether Jeb Bush pushed to send the case through 50 judicial appeals. Each branch is sworn to obey the law of the land, and each branch is free to render judgment upon the law. The legislature acts by changing the law, and the executive, by refusing to allow its enforcement.

What is with people that they automatically default all judgment to the judicial branch? Why do you think we elect the other branches for in the first place. The elected branches speak for the people, and it is we the people who ultimately decide which law and which type of government we will live under. If any of the three branches can be deemed to be illegitimate, it should be the one that is furthest from the popular will.

[watchdog_writer]

Last I checked, the court has no troops to support their murder. Jeb has troops.

So did the Bolsheviks.

[A CA Guy]

"Where does the buck stop?"

With the State and Federal Judges that both condemned her to death.
The Federal one took Jeb out of this.

Michael is also looking for millions after her death in book, movie and speaking deals as the new darling of the culture of death.

[bjs1779]

When the judicial system, as a branch of government, fails to enforce the law of the land, according to the judgment of either the legislature, or the executive office. Then either of those branches can act to restraint the Judicial Branch.

Exactly! We just just ain't got anyone with balls enough to do it.

[Wonder Warthog]

"The way the system works is that the legislature passes laws, the Governor executes then until the courts declare them to be unconstitutional."

No, that's the way the courts WANT you to think it works, and it "has" worked that way because the legislatures have refused to exercise their full powers. The legislative branch was and is supposed to be the final arbiter---NOT the courts. The legislature can change the state Constitution---the legislature can impeach judges. That it has thus far refused to exercise these powers doesn't mean they don't HAVE the power.

"We need to be looking at how corrupt our court system has become filled with activist judges who impose their will on the majority of us."

Yes, and one of the remedies is for the legislature to remove justices from office (by impeachment) for such malfeasment of office.

[etcetera]

"The fallacy of Ambassador Keyes’ argument is that he fails to honor the rule of law..."

Argue the law and constitutionality after safeguarding Terri's life. While the parties argue, Terri slips toward an irreversible end. Move her from her husband's and his lawyer's control. Restore her feeding tube. Then argue all you want.

[BCrago66]

If you don't really have anything new to say, maybe you should cut back on the vanities.

[bjs1779]

So did the Bolsheviks.

What was their intention? To murder, or save life.

[HitmanLV]

It would have helped if the Schindlers got attorneys that were not better suited to storefronts in malls.

[Leatherneck_MT]

2 Branches out of three in the State Government decided at one time that she was not being fairly treated.

One branch out of three Overruled them.

That One branch has set itself up as a dictator over Elected Representatives.

That one branch should have it's offices occupied by State Troops until such time as it can be brought back under control.

No, he has NOT done all that he can do.

He's only done all that was politically expediant to do.

[unbalanced but fair]

Thank you. This definitely needed to be said.

[unbalanced but fair]

I think that rule went by the books about two weeks ago.

[Emmett McCarthy]

Then Terri Schiavo has been denied "due process"? If that's what you're saying, then I guess we might agree.

But, as for it getting "over with", I don't think that's going to happen. Oh, she'll die alright, but it won't be over.

[Arthur McGowan]

There's no "fallacy" in Keyes's argument.

Any "law" or set of "laws" or court orders, etc., that result in the murder of an innocent woman, are null.

Jeb Bush's obligation to save Terri's life remains in full force, no matter what fictitious "laws" some will claim he is violating.

The alternative to Keyes's argument is dictatorship by judges, exercising unlimited power over life and death. That is the alternative you are promoting, and which Jeb Bush is promoting by pretending to be unable to save Terri.

[mountaineer]

Bush should send in the state police, with himself at the head, and tell the local cops to stand down.

What a frightening concept: to expect the government to send in troops whenever the chief executive doesn't agree with a court ruling. Sounds a bit too Soviet for my liking.

[watchdog_writer]

Please tell me what law of the land Judge Greer violated? Judges who conduct a bench trial have discretion to decide the facts of the case. It seem that the evidence presented did not satisfy the clear and convincing test, but when we put these cases into the hands of judges like Greer, we are the ones to blame for the outcome. He was elected by less than 2000 voters. Do you expect that these same voters will return Judge Greer to the bench in the next election? Don't be surprised if they do, because Judge Greer will be the darling of the MSM, and unless you live in a cave, you know how misinformed the average voter is.

[ARCADIA]

If one branch flat out ignores one of the others, we have a constitutional crisis, and that's not good.

A constitutional crisis, is a built-in reset, within the legitimate structure of our government. The real risk, is when you fail to trigger that process and instead end up with an extra-constitutional crisis. That is when bullets start flying, building get blown up, and we start to resemble last year's political process in Iraq. There are people out here who feel that the courts are wrongfully killing innocent people. You may agree with them, or disagree with them; but that is a very dangerous attitude to running through your population.

[pickrell]

"..Last I checked, the court has no troops to support their murder. Jeb has troops..."

Actually, viewed in a particular way, the courts do have troops. They have the power to issue contempt of court judgements, without further review, I believe. It is this power to financially carve up anyone who disagrees with them, or stands in their way, that sets them apart from the other branches of government, and enables a creeping tyranny.

If Governor Bush or various legislators wish to penalize those with who they disagree, they may arrest them, but must,in the end, rely on a conviction/judgement from the courts to penalize. The only certain check is the power of the Governor to pardon. How can this apply to civil issues? Should this not be explored, even if it is too late in this case?

I cannot believe that the power seized by the judiciary was ever envisioned in the founding of the Republic. But many here perhaps can help me and others to a fuller understanding.

Excellent post, watchdog...