Posted on 04/04/2005 8:06:29 AM PDT by tessalu
Vice President Cheney says he opposes revenge against judges for their refusal to prolong the life of the late Terri Schiavo, although he did not criticize House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) for declaring that they will "answer for their behavior."
Cheney was asked about the issue on Friday by the editorial board of the New York Post. He said twice that he had not seen DeLay's remarks, but the vice president said he would "have problems" with the idea of retribution against the courts. "I don't think that's appropriate," he said. "I may disagree with decisions made by judges in any one particular case. But I don't think there would be much support for the proposition that because a judge hands down a decision we don't like, that somehow we ought to go out -- there's a reason why judges get lifetime appointments."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Govan got 60K votes, the 2nd highest number of votes for all elections held on August 31st. Greer got the most number of votes that day.
Greer's war chest was full of dirty money, including from the x-rated movie industry.
It would appear as I heard it quoted before, that the so called "Conservatives" when challenged by the Judiciary, promptly lose bladder control!! How sad. Time for a whole new crop!!
Bull! The only religious bigotry I've seen on FR lately is by the sanctimonious, self-righteous crowd who refuse to even tolerate opposing views.
As for the "very principles" on which the nation was founded, I think people who adhere to your point of view love quoting Constitutional principles when it suits them, but are equally as willing as many Leftist are to throw the Constitution overboard when it doesn't.
That was the key nic - de novo. These Judges completely REFUSED to look at the case from the beginning, DISREGARDING the trial court Judges rulings. In other words, they should have been hearing a NEW case. The one, that Greer wouldn't listen to and couldn't READ!!
Does the law in Florida allow the judge to rule that a person may not be fed by natural means?
Indeed. First we have President Bush sign CFR while saying part of it was unconstitution but he'd let the SCOTUS fix it and now we have Washington railing, for years, about "judicial activism" yet they have never failed, each year, year after year, to continue to fund them with our money.
Either they 1) have never read the Constitution they've sworn to uphold, 2) don't understand the tri-branch system the framers established with it's checks and balances or 3) they're playing us for suckers.
His opponent out spent him 421 to 1
link please
"The problem is not the judges in the Schiavo case; it's the Florida law."
The law said there has to be a written advance directive. Judge Greer change the law to allow hearsay evidence from the husband-in-name-only and discounted the hearsay evidence from Terri's friend.
You are right it is the Florida law AND the lawmakers.
How come the legislature turned over lawmaking on end-of-life issues to an end-of-life panel (not elected of course)?
They ought to be turned out. Is it legal to give a panel the right to make law as they wish without vote?
And, it is a judge that totally shut-down any defense for Terri. Greer is not innocent. He was guardian AND judge at a point over Terri. He refused every effort by her parents. He also refused to offer Terri food and water by mouth which would be the normal procedure before condemning one. This is murder.
I don't care who does it - the state, the federal government, a judge - it is murder. If it is the legislature enacting such laws - it is still murder and a denial of the constitutional rights of Terri.
A travesty and it must be changed.
Jeb Bush could have saved Terri but turned his back on her. He has her blood on his hands, too. I hope and pray that every one who participated in Terri's murder will be held accountable.
And they broke the law by doing so. Blood is on their hands, as well as Greer's, Felos, and MS.
Just WHO wrote the Florida statutes? Was it the legislature? Or was it a designated end-of-life panel whom the legislature allowed to make law as they saw fit.
What control does the population have over a panel making laws that affect the lives of the population?
To me, it would seem this would be illegal as they are not elected and the laws were made without a legislative vote.
That'd be it.
Do you have no problem with ignored supoenas and 15 hour deliberation as to the Constitutionality of acting on Article 3 of the Constitution, or with a judge who forbids feeding by natural means? How about one who will send local policemen to confront State police sent by the Governor to carry out his DCF authority?
FR mail to you
Haha, I've got my money on the "sucker" bet too....
Judging from some posts, looks to me like they've got some here with their eyes still closed.
Thank you for this information.
In addition, Judge Greer chose to ignore a federal subpoena and to ignore the law that was passed to re-review the case.
How come he gets to decide to ignore some laws?
I believe that Michael Schavio wanted Terri dead. Why he couldn't have gone on to live his life with his new wife and left Terri to be cared for by her parents is beyond me. And, if Mr. Schavio was so bound by the oath and obligation to his wife, to be with her until death did them part, to fulfill her wishes for her sake; then he wouldn't be with another women and have had 2 kids with her.
If his intentions were so honorable and true, then I think that I would understand better. If he had been by her beside for so long that they ran out of money to keep Terri alive and no one would have ever helped her and she died a painful death, I could understand that. If it was Michael that was out with a plea for someone to help him so that his wife doesn't have to die a slow and painful death, then I would understand.
If Micheal had done everything possible to keep her alive, then I would have understood. In fact, I would have probably been one to have come to some relief for a man trying to do what's right.
But, it seems that was hardly the case. But, in this whole situation, all Michael had to do was let Terri go. Let Terri go to the parents that reared her. Let Terri go into someone else's care. Let Terri go into the loving and enduring arms of a mother.
So, it is fair to say that he did NOT do everything that he could have kept her alive. Because all he had to do was let go.
It would be interesting to know if he would've found "clear and convincing evidence" if michael had made the same request BEFORE he had his hands on a lot of money, to spread around at his discretion and often with the stamp of approval of the judge
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.