You got that right. The LP always goes directly after the GOP, and never after the RATS.
I wonder just why is that.
Posted on 04/08/2005 5:00:59 PM PDT by libertarianben
It says what it says.
Commenting of the reference to
"Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law"
Actually, I believe Terri's Federal remedy was under 42 USC 1983- and though I don't know the complete facts- it certainly wouldn't have required new emergency legislation to assert her right thereunder and get the matter into Federal Court.
However, since the whole idea was to save Terri, imho, the Republicans adopted the wrong political strategy to achieve that end. The emergency legislation turned into a political football, especially with the Martinez fiasco. (what was that about?)
Once again, if my facts are right, the Fla. Senate defeated a bill that could have saved Terri, by a vote where some 7 Republicans voted against.
It seems to me that the more plausible strategy would have been to get Mr. DeLay and Pres Bush on the phone to those dissenting Republicans, and explain to them the concept of "party unity" in no uncertain terms.
It is incredible to me that those votes could not have been flipped- and certainly, that would have been a more effective means to rescue Terri- as opposed ro letting the liberal national Media screw the Republicans one more, and open the door to these charges of hypocrisy.
You got that right. The LP always goes directly after the GOP, and never after the RATS.
I wonder just why is that.
You shouldn't be condescending and tell people you will keep it "light" for them, unless you are positive about your own position. It seems that it is the very lightness that you speak of that makes you so certain that you are correct - even though you are wrong.
There are plenty of examples of the federal government intervening or challenging state government actions that challenge a citizens' right to Constitutional protections.
It is a dynamic interplay that is not static. It's a moving scale sometimes...there may come a day when certain judicial changes will disallow what happened to Terri Schiavo.
You may think it is as simple as looking at "your" interpretation of the Constitution. But, it is much more complex than that.
I once used to consider myself a large-L libertarian (voted for Browne over Dole, and even retrospectively can't say I regret the decision; if the Republicans hadn't staked all their political capital on that loser, they could have gained strength in both branches of Congress and kept Clinton in check). Until recently, I've considered myself a small-l libertarian, perceiving that the libertarians were often right but the party was not effective at advancing its platform. But the Libertarian Party has gotten so bonkers that I see no reason to desire association with it in any way, shape, or form.
The echoes of Gov. George C. Wallace are still going on today.
Mae Magouirk safe for now. See Tekgnosis for further details.
Tell the Media to report the REAL Schiavo polls!
http://capwiz.com/sicminc/issues/alert/?alertid=7351686&type=ME
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/4/emw226586.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/prweb/20050408/bs_prweb/prweb226586_3
My account, etc. of Terri Schindler's Funeral Mass:
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com
The courts interfere in all kinds of states rights decisions. This was NOT a state's right decision but an unlawful decision made by a rogue judge.
Who said this? Most of the people I know here who agree with me are pro-life.
What makes you the expert? What makes Greer an expert? Since you are a self anoited expert- perhaps you can tell us which law school Greer attended, is it the same one you have?
How silly.
...the fact is you cannot address what the law says when it comes a person's rights on end of life issues, and the right to say no to ANY medical treatments we want.
Unless of course you want to take that right away from the rest of us.
And your point is?
What does this have to do with the Terri debate?
Except, of course, when they AREN'T, such as that Grandma in Georgia who, but for the grace of the real God (not the phony one you praise) would have already died.
I note with great interest that people like you seem to have virtually no interest in safeguards with teeth, because you want your own or relatives' "death with dignity" to be easy and hassle free. Heaven forbid that something should have to be sworn!
Since when does limited government = bending over for judicial tyrants?
She was suffering? And you know this because....you can channel thoughts like George Felos and John Edwards?
Are you serious?
You can't talk. You can't move. You can't eat. You can't go to the bathroom. You can't wash yourself. Somebody has to wipe your butt daily. You can't cover yourself if you're cold. Of even ask somebody to do so.
And you just lay there day after day, month after month, year after year in this state with nothing but a feeding tube sustaining you.
And you tell me I need to "channel thoughts" to know that such an existance would be a state of suffering.
Is it wrong to force people to be sustained in a vegetative existance by medical treatments against their will?
Do you or don't you agree with the US Supreme Court decision that every individual has the constitutional right to control his or her own medical treatment?
Last I checked, this is a CONSERVATIVE website. What you posted is akin to a Democrat coming on this site and posting a column from the NY Times, touting it's merits.
The legal right of the disabled not to be killed becomes an "end-of-life" consideration, once you stop feeding them. Do you not see that? You are aware that Terri was not terminal?
No, the original question was:
Was it wrong to kill Terri Shiavo?
You know she was killed, via forced dehydration and starvation?
So Libertarians think it was okay to torture and kill Terri?
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.