Just damn.
If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...
Posted on 03/30/2005 6:44:50 PM PST by watchdog_writer
Just damn.
If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...
I echo your sentiments. This is out of control.
I am sick to death of hearing the hysteria of Randall Terry and his followers directed at Jeb.
unfortunately that is the way it works I wish it were not so; however, if voters were properly educated, instead of being misinformed by the MSM, perhaps they would insist upon judges who are faithfully discharging the duties of their office. Has it escaped your attention that the Supreme Court by declaring laws unconstitutional is legislating from the bench, and their laws do not reflect the will of the majority. Make sure that President Bush's nomination are approved.
Those are the arguments of systematic murderers such as those of the Third Reich.
Corrupt judges and courts have been ordering barbaric atrocities throughout history and they must be made to kneel to a higher moral law by the enraged people themselves.
Only barbarians would starve someone like this and no legal justification will ever exist to slowly and painfully starve a human being to death.
Such barbaric action is beyond humanity and deserves the full measure of loathing by moral and righteous people.
These are the rulings of despots and tyrants who think of humans as disposable subjects, beneath the value of animals.
The sickness and depravity of this murder is unveiled by the simple question: If a court has ruled this woman must die, why is she not to be killed swiftly and humanely? Even mass murderers cannot be starved to death. There is not a soul in America who does not know starvation is a death sentence, clearly in the category of "cruel and unusual punishment."
She would die more swiftly being drawn and quartered.
Terri Schiavo cannot find enough humanity left in the legal system of the United States to merit the swift death of a mass murderer.
This is not a law demanding allegiance. It is pure evil.
A rule of law built upon, and justifying, evil acts cannot hold a society together. It will tear a society to pieces.
We richly deserve our destruction and we will see it.
I'd be very interested in seeing what authority you can cite for your position? Which is not to say that I believe that any such law should be constitutional. In this case the law is constitutional, it was how that law was interpreted by Judge Greer that has resulted in injustice. Did you read Ambassador Keyes' article? If so what is his constitutional authority for his position?
Maybe you can form a militia? As bad as we think his decision was, Judge Greer has the constitutional authority to make it. We are responsible for electing him, we are to blame. We have the right to vote him out of office and see to it that a conservative judge take his place.
I'll give your suggestion some serious consideration. Thank you for your opinion.
You want to ping him, or shall I? :)
That "higher law" being defined by you, of course. And your kind. Who needs the Constitution when we have those who believe in a "higher law?"
lawlessness, chaos, and revolution. I will concede that we have a constitutional crises, but we need to become more active and vote out of office every liberal judge and every liberal politician in office.
Back in the 30's during alot of the gangster trials the buck stopped there. Right in the judges pocket and still goes on now. There is a lot of corruption down there in the good ole boy city.
Actually, besides the pardon, there is prosecutorial discretion as well. E.g., the acriminal adultery statute in Florida is enforced rarely, if at all.
Civil courts only carry out money judgements. They don't incarceraate or condemn criminals. In this case, the court holds itself out as follwing the patient's wishes. As we can see, there is not much of a hurdel to find the pateint's wisehs, and if that finding is incorrect (either way), it stands review by higher courts, provided the process is followed.
This is a "case" of first immpression, with the combination of life/death in a civil trial (which usually only divides money up among the contestants) and an entrenched judiciary that may have commited factual error. Very interesting times indeed. I suspect, FWIW, that there are civil trial swhere the appellate court does in fact review the evidence. Especially where the judgement is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Couldn't cite one, but additures, remitteurs, and reversals must, maybe one in a thousand, hinge on the facts and not on the law. I think the reversl of punitiva award in the McDonald's Coffee-burn case hinged on a review of the evidence.
At least to a neophyte in the judicial arena like me, I would have to ask myself, can I take the chance? Sure, in a case like this where there is a life involved, people demand that the executive branch grab their cojones and stand fast. Emotions are running high. But a growing power to financially ruin those who would oppose the Black Robes seems to me to be the most serious threat of this whole issue.
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.