Posted on 03/31/2005 8:05:44 AM PST by Pyro7480
I didn't see your reply about why she was denied palliative care or water. Is that legal? Is it right? Removing the feeding tube was horrible. I don't understand what a device being complicated has to do with anything. A respirator is complicated... should it not have been used for Christopher Reeve? This isn't a technical issue, it's a moral issue. Deliberately starving someone is evil. Period.
It's not just Jeb or George Bush. The Executive and Legislative branches, on all levels, has ceded power to the Judicial branch. It didn't start when either of them took office. They are simply the latest office holders to accept this situation as "Constitutional."
Going going gone, out of the ball park. I can't think of anything FDR did in his 4 terms of office and during a World War that is a disgraceful as this. Even leaving the troops on Bataan to die was not as bad as sitting around and watching a cool blooded horrific murder. Morality bankrupt is an understatement.
Youre welcome....yes it will
I was not referring to this country in my remark. I was referring to the country called "Kingdom of Heaven".
"This is how Hitler got started. He propagandized the acceptance of getting rid of "those not worthy of life". He started with the invalid elderly, went to the disabled, then the Jews, then those without blond hair and blue eyes - even though he was brown/black haired with brown eyes!"
Don't forget George "ferret-face" Felos as one of the circle of trusted murderers. This lawyer makes me want to vomit with his "euthanasia - it doesn't hurt to die crapola". Next time we have a hostage crisis, let's offer to trade Michael Shiavo, Judge Greer and George Felos for the hostages...
She was denied food and water as a legal issue. The argument thread has been that she was never on artificial life support, therefore her wishes as determined in court should not apply. My point was the the complexity of the feeding tube qualifies as artificial life support. Reeve wanted it, a court determined Terri did not want it, get it?
"Would you be defending their actions if they were Democrats?"
Any president, dem or repub would not be to blame for this.
"I will pray for you."
Good, I'll take all I can get.
Every day, young men and women are putting their lives on the line defending the Constitution of the United States.
Those of you demanding that George Bush should have overstepped his authority for Terri, are, in essence, treating the Constitution as so much toilet paper, and are demeaning the sacrifice made every day by U.S. troops.
By the checks and balances built into the system, they have the ability to appoint judges who support their point of view. They cannot just disobey them unless you believe in a President with dictatorial powers. I don't. I think the federal government has limited powers -- only those granted to them by the Constitution. It is the Democrats who argue for an infinitely powerful Presidency who can right every wrong and change every diaper. If you want the judiciary reigned in, you need to support an executive and legislature who would appoint judges who also believe in limited powers. If you support Democrats who believe in unlimited government and who appoint judges who also believe in unlimited government, then you can't be surprised if you get unlimited government.
They have the support of We The People.
Not on this issue. 80% of people surveyed support the decision to kill Terri.
Worth repeating.
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone as murderers. The fact is that the state sanctioned the death of an innocent woman who was not otherwise dying. "We the people" are the state.
Yeah, they did. And the Governor kissed his rear end on both cheeks. Even had a press conference with him.
But he wouldn't see Alan Keyes, who had the brief that outlined the constitutional issues at stake here.
Jeb said he wanted to find a way to save Terri, but that was a lie. Events prove it. What he really wanted was a way to minimize damage to himself while doing nothing that mattered.
"Then man law conflicts with natural law or devine law it is no longer law. It is tyranny"
The rule of law, and the rule by judges are not the same thing. That is what the hoohah is all about.
Each branch is supposed to be restrained by the law as written, most especially the highest law, the Constitution of the United States, and that of a particular state if applicable. Increasingly the Judges and Justices, Congresscritters and Presidents too, are ignoring that highest law, and just doing whatever strikes their fancy.
So far i've counted 10 times that Fox has done a graphic on it. Must be REAL important < /sarc>
i emailed FOX to 'thank' them for giving us one more chance to "savor" the face of death (felos)
comments@foxnews.com
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.