Im not disagreeing with you about the judges but your previous statement about the President is peculiar.
I dont like debating about the different levels of govt and how they all relate with each other but I must say this statement is very reminicent of the Clinton days when it was "stroke of the pen, law of the land".
Im deeply saddened by Terri's court sanctioned death but I will not act as a hypocrite when I called Clinton names for what he did personally in cases he thought was important enough (Waco, Elian).
This is a major defeat for the executive and legislative branch against an out of control court system.
We dont have a King-like president who can abuse his presidential oath at will even if it is for the noblist of causes like Terri. He was handcuffed by our own "laws".
We can either all work together and get this reversed or bicker at each other like crazed lunatics. I would prefer we get something done rather than sound like a bunch of 5 yr old kids trying to find a scapegoat.
If we are saying the executive branch must execute the unconstitutional orders of a judge above the requirements of the Constitution, then we are saying he has no duty to the Constitution.
And yet, he swore an oath, not to be subservient to a judge, but the obey the Constitution.
To say he must obey a judge, even to the point of killing an innocent person, is to say we DO have a king. The judges are our dictators.
But we know the executive is NOT required, even when a convict is sentenced to death, to carry out that order. He has the power to stay executions.
Very appropriate to put "laws" in quotes. It wasn't really the law, but a judges' personal verision of it that was the problem here.