Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Public execution
The Spectator ^ | 2 April 2005 | Mark Steyn

Posted on 03/31/2005 5:25:20 AM PST by mal

Do you remember a fellow called Robert Wendland? No reason why you should. I wrote about him in this space in 1998, and had intended to return to the subject but something else always intervened — usually Bill Clinton’s penis, which loomed large, at least metaphorically, over the entire era. Mr Wendland lived in Stockton, California. He was injured in an automobile accident in 1993 and went into a coma. Under state law, he could have been starved to death at any time had his wife requested the removal of his feeding tube. But Rose Wendland was busy with this and that, as one is, and assumed there was no particular urgency.

(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: marksteyn; steyn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201 next last
To: AndrewC

In our country that is determined by the courts.


141 posted on 03/31/2005 10:27:05 AM PST by ContraryMary (WPPFF Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: ContraryMary
In our country that is determined by the courts.

Like Dred Scott?

Did this decision strike down the recently passed law referenced in the decision or is the question still unanswered?

142 posted on 03/31/2005 10:32:02 AM PST by AndrewC (All these moments are tossed in lime, like trains in the rear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

OH, PUHLEEEEZE, I certainly hope you're not trying to draw a parallel between slavery and Terri Schiavo!


143 posted on 03/31/2005 10:35:59 AM PST by ContraryMary (WPPFF Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: sockmonkey
Dr. Cranford described him as a "trained animal", and said he should have his feeding tube yanked so his wife could move on.

What?? An animal?? OMG. I'm beyond words. There is no shortage of these freaks posing as doctors who want to euthanize all but the most perfect among us as decided by them, Nazi-style, to the praise, no less, of others.

144 posted on 03/31/2005 10:39:07 AM PST by fortunecookie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ContraryMary
OH, PUHLEEEEZE, I certainly hope you're not trying to draw a parallel between slavery and Terri Schiavo!

OH, PUHLEEEEZE, stop trying red herring. I asked you a question concerning the constitutionality of a law. Here is a hint from the previously cited decision.

Justice Birch----

In the instant appeal, our court and the district court continue to indulge this presumption and decline to address the constitutionality of the law which purports to grant federal jurisdiction.

145 posted on 03/31/2005 10:40:51 AM PST by AndrewC (All these moments are tossed in lime, like trains in the rear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

Then why do you insist on bringing up a red herring? Slavery, Naziism, and all the other over-the-top comparisons to Terri that have been made are emotional arguments unrelated to reality.


146 posted on 03/31/2005 10:43:45 AM PST by ContraryMary (WPPFF Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: ContraryMary
Then why do you insist on bringing up a red herring?

Answer the question, is the law we are discussing unconstitutional as determined by the courts?

147 posted on 03/31/2005 10:44:58 AM PST by AndrewC (All these moments are tossed in lime, like trains in the rear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Answer the question, is the law we are discussing unconstitutional as determined by the courts?

Unfortunately, with Terri's death the law is rendered moot so it's constitutionality will never be considered in court. I do think that is unfortunate, because a definitive ruling would settle the issue. As it is now, Congress can pass another law of this type again.

148 posted on 03/31/2005 10:47:31 AM PST by ContraryMary (WPPFF Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: ContraryMary
Unfortunately, with Terri's death the law is rendered moot so it's constitutionality will never be considered in court.

Wrong answer. It is constitutional.

149 posted on 03/31/2005 10:48:29 AM PST by AndrewC (All these moments are tossed in lime, like trains in the rear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

In your opinion.


150 posted on 03/31/2005 10:51:21 AM PST by ContraryMary (WPPFF Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: ContraryMary
In your opinion.

Not just my opinion. What law allowed the Schindlers to recently sue in Federal court, all the way up to the U.S. Supreme court? One that was unconstitutional?

151 posted on 03/31/2005 10:53:18 AM PST by AndrewC (All these moments are tossed in lime, like trains in the rear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

Thanks; that's interesting. . .


152 posted on 03/31/2005 10:55:50 AM PST by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

Guess again. Read the trial court's openion and the opinion of the appellate court. They both said that for purposes of considering the case they would ASSUME the law was constitutional. The constitutionality of the law was not challenged at that time. Should it have reached that stage, it would very likely have been declared unconstitutional given the highly consistent court rulings. Two out of 13 federal judges does not a majority make.


153 posted on 03/31/2005 11:01:52 AM PST by ContraryMary (WPPFF Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

A brilliant gut-check by Steyn.


154 posted on 03/31/2005 11:10:01 AM PST by prairiebreeze (Does my American flag offend you? Dial 1-800-LEAVE THE USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ContraryMary
Guess again. Read the trial court's openion and the opinion of the appellate court. They both said that for purposes of considering the case they would ASSUME the law was constitutional. The constitutionality of the law was not challenged at that time. Should it have reached that stage, it would very likely have been declared unconstitutional given the highly consistent court rulings. Two out of 13 federal judges does not a majority make.

Guess again, by hearing the case and not determining the constitutionality they admitted jurisdiction which, according to Birch, cannot be premsumed.

Justice Birch ---

Jurisdiction, however, is a prerequisite to the legitimate exercise of judicial power, and therefore we may not hypothetically assume jurisdiction to avoid resolving hard jurisdictional questions.

155 posted on 03/31/2005 11:13:04 AM PST by AndrewC (All these moments are tossed in lime, like trains in the rear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

I think you've forgotten that Birch wrote a DISSENTING opinion. In other words, it was not the ruling of the court and holds no effect in law.


156 posted on 03/31/2005 11:19:41 AM PST by ContraryMary (WPPFF Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78; lightingguy
Having done away with those kinds of ‘burdens’ at birth, we’re less inclined to tolerate them when they strike in adulthood, as they did in Terri Schiavo’s case.

BINGO! And this is PRECISELY why this issue and abortion are irrefutably linked.

Very good read, thanks for posting the whole thing.

157 posted on 03/31/2005 11:22:00 AM PST by agrace ([ It is He] that brings the princes to nothing; He makes the judges of the earth as vanity. Is 40:23)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ContraryMary
I think you've forgotten that Birch wrote a DISSENTING opinion. In other words, it was not the ruling of the court and holds no effect in law.

I think you haven't read the decision, because, among other things, Justice Birch is the writer concurring with the MAJORITY opinion("BIRCH, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:").

158 posted on 03/31/2005 11:27:19 AM PST by AndrewC (All these moments are tossed in lime, like trains in the rear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78; All
‘The Jewish people, long ago in their collective consciousness, agreed to play the role of the lamb whose slaughter was necessary to shock humanity into a new moral consciousness. Their sacrifice saved humanity at the brink of extinction and propelled us into a new age.... If our minds can conceive of an uplifting Holocaust, can it be so difficult to look another way at the slights and injuries and abuses we perceive were inflicted upon us?’

Can anybody please tell me what in the heck Felos is talking about? I'm serious, thanks.

159 posted on 03/31/2005 11:28:20 AM PST by prairiebreeze (Does my American flag offend you? Dial 1-800-LEAVE THE USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

Interesting. It seems to exclude county officers from the listed exceptions. A shame his people didn't interpret it that way.


160 posted on 03/31/2005 11:28:50 AM PST by agrace ([ It is He] that brings the princes to nothing; He makes the judges of the earth as vanity. Is 40:23)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson