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
I have great respect for Ambassador Keyes, and for his acumen, but his article on World Net Daily suggesting that if Governor Bush does not call out the State Police, or I assume, also the National Guard to save Terri’s life, he is derelict in his duty. Ambassador Keys owes us a better argument than the practically off the cuff argument in his article. Ambassador Keyes is not alone in his harsh criticism of Governor Bush, but I am not with them in this.
When Governor Bush moved the legislature of Florida to pass Terri’s Law it did so in two days. Arguably the Governor had sufficient constitutional power without passing a special bill. Under Article IV, Section (8)(a) of the Constitution of Florida 1968, the Governor has the right to grant pardons, restore civil rights, as well as other executive powers. Florida courts have abstained from becoming involved in this admitted matter of executive grace. The action taken by Governor Bush pursuant to Terri’s Law simply guaranteed to Terri her constitutional rights. The bill did not change any law that applied to her case; nevertheless, judges declared Terri’s Law unconstitutional.
Terri’s case has given the pro-life advocates much to be angry about, but it was not Jeb Bush who decided to starve Terri that was Judge Greer. It was not Jeb Bush who stood in front of cameras and told the world, as Terri was being starved to death, that she looked peaceful and contented, that was George Felos, the same attorney that outlawyered Pamela Campbell. Jeb Bush was not the one who gave Ms. Campbell awards for being an outstanding attorney, that was the St. Petersburg Bar Association. It was not Jeb Bush that refused to give Terri a new trial that was the Federal Bench That the National Guard is not marching in Pinellas County has outraged pro-life advocates more than what they view as judicial tyranny.
The power of the courts to decide whether or not life support should be continued or discontinued does not result from any inherent power of the government to order such a result. The decision is not even one to be made by the surrogate of the incompetent, only the court can decide if the facts and circumstances of the case meet the judicial criteria set forth in prior decisions and statutes. It is now proper therefore for Governor Bush, regardless of his personal beliefs, not to order the feeding tubes to be reconnected after a court of competent jurisdiction has ordered their removal.
The fallacy of Ambassador Keyes’ argument is that 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, although I believe that in such cases a jury should decide; and, yes the process was flawed, but the order was issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, and in my opinion, it would be executive tyranny for the Governor to mobilize the police power of the state to contravene a lawful order of the court, no matter how much he may disagree with the verdict.
The authority of the court to order the removal of the feeding tubes from Terri Marie was based upon the law in effect at the time of that decision, but when the State Legislature passed subsequent legislation, the judge’s decision was at that moment in time in conflict with the law. Courts in such situations often grant injunctions that require compliance by either affirmative action or non-action. In fact in Terri Marie’s case the court did issue an order to remove the tubes, and then later, in compliance with a duly enacted law, the tubes were reinserted in order to maintain the status quo, and to prevent irreparable harm.
Terri’s Law gave the Governor the clear statutory authority to order the tubes to be reconnected, in doing so Governor Bush did nothing more than any judge in the judicial branch would have the authority to do. He acted responsibly and compassionately by using his executive power to enforce legislation. It is his sworn duty to uphold the constitution of the State of Florida and the Laws of the State duly enacted by the Florida Legislature pursuant to their Constitutional authority.
When Governor Bush ordered the doctors to reconnect Terri to life sustaining nutrients, he did not act arbitrarily, nor did the Legislature grant some special power to the Governor. The Legislature responded, as they should have to a public outcry by changing the law. Courts do this very same thing every day of the year in every State and Federal court. Courts make law when they decide cases, and when the tide of public opinion changes, their decisions change.
We have seen the courts overturn decisions that violated the civil rights of innocent people powerless to defend themselves against ignorance and prejudice. The collective conscience of a free people is embodied in every branch of government. The legislature that defines it, the courts that explain it, and the executive that enforces it. When government responds to the will of the majority, filtered through moral elected representatives, guided by tradition, and protective of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the State and Federal Constitutions, there is no greater institution. May God comfort Terri Marie and her family, and God bless Governor Bush. He has done all that is within his power.
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.