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 ...
What the heck are you talking about? I didn't say where it came from. But it is from the decision here...http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511628reh2.pdf And though it may be a concurring opinion, it is sufficient to describe the author's disdain for the duly elected legislators and President of this nation. This was not a comment made in front of the local Lion's club. It was derisive of the other branches of government in the proper execution of their duties and was stated so in an official record of this nation. The legislature and President did not act in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Constitution. They, like the damn judges rating themselves, performed in strict compliance with the operations as set out in the Constitution. The judges nodded in agreement among themselves as a life was taken because they thought judicial procedure was done correctly. Justice is more than procedure. Executing a person for a crime they did not commit is not justice no matter how scrupulously the process to achieve that injustice was followed.
They didn't refuse to prolong Terri's life. She wasn't dying, until they killed her.
Americans oppose the starving of Terri Schindler -- Zogby poll.
Don't worry TAdams, sinkspur pins his hopes on a biased ABC poll -- the same folks who had Kerry by a landsline.
Wrong. To remove the feeding tube required that the proxy(Michael) give clear and convincing evidence that Terri would have wanted to be starved to death. A gaurdian ad Litem hired by the court for Terri found that Michael was not clear and convincing. Michael called the GAL biased and Greer bought off on it. The clear and convincing evidence was Michael's hearsay evidence that Terri wouldn't want to live that way while watching a movie. Supposedly more hearsay evidence from Michael's brother and his wife backed that up. Hardly clear and convincing to me.
You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT AndrewC.!!!!!
Since you've fallen in love with Zogby, are you going to believe his poll that says that 40% of Republicans who voted for him in his district feel less favorable toward him?
Since he only one with 55% of the vote, DeLay's got some fence mending to do.
Please back that up with a link. I like to look at source data.
It sickens me when I hear such lame brained answers from people who should know better.
Damn.
Also, a lot of the nurses testifying against MS were disgruntled because he was very pushy in making sure Terri was well taken care of. He almost had restraining orders against him for the level of care he demanded.
The bone scans don't prove any abuse, let alone who may have done such abuse. And, from what I've read, they can all be attributed to complications from bulemia coupled with the fall she took her initial collapse as well as resucitation efforts by paramedics. The stiff neck issue couldn't be caused by strangulation - vertibrae were damaged, but such strangulation would have left bruises but none were observed. The stiff neck is a typical response to anoxic brain injury. Also, if her injuries were suspected of being caused by abuse and not bulemia, then why wasn't this brough out by the defense during the malpractice suit where MS was awarded A million $? The abuse argument, unless there is more information (from the autopsy perhaps), is nothing but speculation at best and there isn't any evidence that MS did it. Even Terri's friends who were witnesses during the trial gave conflicting testimony and hence had their credibility impeached.
IMHO this legal battle was a the worst type of a major fight between family members and both sides were doing everything they could to get it to go their way.
Zogby's was the only Terri poll that was based on honest questions: Should this woman have been starved? ABC and your other liberal polls made a point of tiptoeing around the facts, so people wouldn't know what was going on.
As for Zogby, he's the pollster that Rush turned to when Rush wanted more honest questionst than MSM polls.
Except that would have been illegal in Florida and every other state. So it was better that she be starved for 13 days. I wonder if Shakespeare would have written a play called "McTerri." Out damn spot?
The whole thing is beyond sick. And people can rationalize it. And politicians can try to brush it under expensive carpeting (in all those halls of justice offices) and get on with their lives, hoping it will all go away.
If a judge ruled that Cheney's lesbian daughter couldn't shack up with her lesbian "wife" or lesbian "husband" or whatever she calls her lesbian live-in, I'll bet Cheney might speak out against that judge. Is it only when a judge issues a liberal ruling - like killing a defenseless disabled woman - that Cheney says we have to salute and shut up?
I read your reply to my post #59 and wanted to clarify that I do not align myself with the WPPFF. My comments were directed toward lugsoul, who is a WPPFFer and but who posted a reference to "nazi death cultists" in an apparent vein of sarcasm, earlier in this thread.
I have read enough of the WPPFF threads and WPPFFer comments to see they are not accountable to the "standards" they set for themselves. There is a double standard. While their manifesto claims they are opposed to name calling, innuendo, hyperbole, use of emotionally charged words, etc., time spent reviewing their posts would indicate otherwise.
I should probably leave this as is. But I am curious as to where you stand on a related matter. You have said, "I reject name calling in any case that would include the use of "Nazi" to describe a freeper who takes the view that our laws in their current form regarding the issues surrounding Terri's fate are just."
Many have made comparisons to what happened to Terri with what took place, historically speaking, in Nazi Germany's eugenics program. This program involved the deaths of 200,000 disabled individuals. Providing the frame of reference is the historic program that occurred, and providing the term Nazi Germany was used in an historical context, not to call names or insinuate anything about another's character, do you feel that type of discourse should be allowed?
Now on yet another note...
You also wrote, "I believe cooler heads will prevail in the heart wrenching case of Terri Shiavo and a just means to avenge her death will evolve."
I pray it is so.
Moral relativity always finds excuses. Justifications for doing wrong does not make it right; it's still wrong to play God and murder a human being.
I'm with Delay too. Something has got to be done. We can't starve the weak till they die. My heart is heavy that we couldn't save Terri. She hung on as long as she could, 14 days... doesn't sound like a person that wants to die.
Mel Gibson had it right: "These people are completely transparent to me now." The two Bushes, Cheney--they are far too privileged and invested in "the system" to risk rocking the boat. They value "the system"--by which I do NOT mean the U.S. Constitution, but the actual, functioning system in which they have POWER--to do anything that upsets the power and money elites.
Joe Sobran's aphorism is more true now than ever, in light of the murder of Terri Schiavo by Jeb Bush and George Bush: "The U.S. Constitution poses no threat to our current form of government."
"Well, you best prepare to be disappointed. DeLay has no support for what he's trying to do."
Many of us here support Delay, and are tired of the status quo.
If the wimpy Republicans are the best we got, we are in deep trouble. We need more strong leaders, with convictions, like Delay.
Write him and let him know.........
vice.president@whitehouse.gov
I doubt if Cheney, or the other politicians elite, would be so cavalier about a judge going against the Constitution if it were one of THEIR daughters. To heck with the common folk. The Constitution protects us, and when a judge goes against the Constitution, HE (Judge Greer) is breaking the law.
We need to encourage and support Tom Delay by calling him at 202-225-5951, and also, asking our reps and U.S. senators to back him. I did that just this morning.
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.