Rush Nails it!
Rush Nails it!
I must be getting old. I am thinking he looks pretty attractive there. Sorry, nothing of substance to add. (:
Something I noticed about the opinion is that sure, we have checks and balances, but what good are they if the Judiciary is not subject to the checks placed upon it? "Three distinct" branches is one thing, but they ALL have power over the OTHERS. If the Judiciary can ignore the Executive and Legislative, where are the checks and balances?
"I continue to want to focus on the courts because the courts are the ones that made this happen. I mean you can say that George Felos is involved and Michael Schiavo and all that, true, but when you boil it down it's the courts that caused this woman to die or let this woman die, however you want to look at it. The US and state courts are the ones who made this day possible."
Obviously, in any case that goes to court, the court could be said to be responsible for all that happens. But Michael Schiavo was the one who wanted his wife's feeding tube removed. Had he not fought for that and refused to consider her parents and their wishes and belief of what Terri would want, there wouldn't have been a court case to begin with. The focus on the judiciary, as important a dialogue as it is, can blur the direct line of responsibility if we let it. And to say that the courts are the whole reason this happened or to gloss over Michael Schiavo and "boil it down" to being all the courts' fault loses that fact.
Hey, wait a min...............
Every federal court in this nation, except the SCOTUS, was created by Congress, which means they can be 'uncreated' by repeal of those statutes. And the SCOTUS can simply be unfunded-no staff, no building, no word processors, no paychecks. It's time they were reminded of this simple fact.
The imperial judiciary is peeved that the executive or the legislative branches might somehow assert some of their rightful powers -- indeed the justices were exercised enough by such lese majeste that the 11th ignored the plain words of our Constitution.
The American Judiciary, is certainly not clear and unbiased. Many of us on Terri's side, already had guessed that the judges involved in the outcome of Terri's case, would go against her. Because, they want to "show" President Bush...
Ironically, Judge Birch is exactly the kind of man that social conservatives, in more normal times, would want appointed to the federal bench.
Here's the thought that's been on my mind regarding separation of powers:
If we play word games like the Left does, then when did the power of the courts morph from issuing OPINIONS to issuing RULINGS or ORDERS?
If the Executive has the power of ACTING (executing), then the Judiciary issuing RULINGS is usurping the power to act reserved to the Executive.
There can be only one ruler in a Republic, and that is the elected executive. The Legislature makes law, the Executive enforces law, and the Judiciary offers OPINIONS on law, not decrees, orders, or rulings. The Executive should be free to accept or reject the OPINIONS of the Judiciary.
-PJ
The arrogance of this postmodern nihilist staggers the brain.
The Constitution, you see, BELONGS TO HIM.
Take the time to read this excellent Rush monologue and the great responses to it on the thread.