Posted on 04/09/2005 3:48:54 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Top conservative leaders gathered here a week after Terri Schiavo's death to plot a course of action against the nation's courts, but much of their anger was directed at leading Republicans, exposing an emerging crack between the party's leadership and core supporters on the right.
And yesterday they issued an ''action plan" to take their crusade for control of the nation's courts well beyond Senate debates over judicial nominees, pressing Congress to impeach judges and defund courts they consider ''activist" and to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts over some sensitive social matters -- a strategy opposed by many leading Senate Republicans.
''This is not a Democrat- Republican issue; it is a liberal-conservative issue," Rick Scarborough, a Baptist minister and chair of the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration, sponsor of the gathering, said in an interview. ''It's about a temporal versus eternal value system. We are not going away."
In the charged battle over the future of the nation's courts, conservatives so far are outgunned financially. Last week, liberal groups mounted a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign designed to build support for the filibuster and thwart Senate confirmation of nominees they consider extremists who will pursue a ''radical agenda and favor corporate interests over our interests," as one MoveOn.org radio advertisement intoned.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
What was the "clear and convincing evidence" in Terri's case? I must have missed it.
It's hard to argue intelligently with someone who refuses to acknowledge facts.
Your ignorance of principles is astounding.
And consistent.
I respectfully disagree; I don't think this is nonsense, at all. It's imperative that people understand what is going on in the bigger picture.
I will now only vote for those who earn my respect by what they accomplish, regardless of party affiliation, with certain exceptions.
It's become all too obvious that R's after one's name means nothing. NY, for instance, is full of RINO's, who have, through inaction, allowed the citizens of this state to become one of the highest overtaxed in the nation. That's just one issue.
Nationally, it's become a party of inaction, lots of promises, feel-good talk. But when the rubber meets the road, lots of hand-wringing or threats, never carried out. Hot air is what that is.
Another FReeper said it best: it appears that we're just frogs in hot water, regardless of which party is in control; the only difference between the Rats and the Republican party is a matter of degrees.
Given that the Libertarian Party took the murderers' side in this case, I would tend to think not. But it might boost the Constitution Party.
Then it seems we agree in principle.
Just not on the particulars surrounding this case.
Of course I am conflicted when it comes to some of these very questions. I don't know.
But somebody has to decide. State law says the husband is responsible and they believed his claim that he represented her wishes.
The people of this state like to spend money. Most of them are Democrats. Most of them support throwing boat loads of money at government.
If the people of this state don't care about government spending, then how could you expect the R pols of this state to care?
How about enforcing the existing laws that require that guardians that develop severe conflicts of interest, and whose actions are demonstrably affect by such conflicts, have their guardianship revoked?
Terri's parents filed a challenge to Michael's guardianship in 2002. Judge Greer never heard it. He originally scheduled a hearing to happen a week or so after Terri was supposed to have died in 2003. When she failed to die, Michael failed to show up for the hearing but instead had Felos ask for a continuance. The case has been indefinitely continued ever since until finally, on March 31, it was mooted.
It is the duty of those elected to represent the PEOPLE who elected them into office. They do not do this. They make backroom deals with the Rats (I know this as a fact.)
Not "they" believered him. Greer believed him, or at least said he did. No one will ever convince be Greer acted legally. Never. Greer and Michael killed Terri.
Well, I'd say the Schiavos' claims about Terri's wishes were transparent as glass. So that should qualify for at least the "clear" part.
If they didn't represent the people who elected them, then they wouldn't be re-elected into office.
I agree. There are many in the GOP who are attacking Bush - but the secret is that these people were pro-death Libertarians to begin with.
Here in my town, the recently elected libertarian-leaning GOP head was going to pay Neal Boortz to come to the Reagan Dinner until the outrage from local GOPers dissuaded him.
Neal has great views on taxes, but he's very pro-state and pro-judiciary on everything else. I've never understood why libertarians are so pro-judiciary, but they are, and anything the courts like, they seem to like, too. So the rest of us have got to stand up to them.
An incumbent being re-elected does not mean that he's re-elected because someone wants that person there, per se. It could just as well mean that the person re-elected is the lesser of two evils. There's also campaign smearing. There's also, as you well know, ignoramuses that vote to re-elect because it's easier than learning facts about the candidate. There's a host of reasons why someone might be elected.
But when a constituent, who is informed with facts, writes letters to their representative/senator, and it is repeatedly ignored, regardless of content, that speaks volumes about the individual who is in office.
How would you know?
The real problem is your own blind application of "principles" with absolutely no grasp of priorities or the underlying values supporting these principles.
And you don't debate. You just parrot cliches and call people names who disagree with you.
I really think you can do better than this.
Suppose Alex Quimby, nephew of the recently-deceased Jack Quimby, appears before Judge Greer with a cocktail napkin containing what superficially appears to be a handwritten will by JQ giving his entire estate to AQ. AQ claims to have seen JQ write it.
AQ offers the testimony of a handwriting expert that says the writing on the napkin matches another sample of JQ's writing supplied by AQ. JQ's other relatives, who would be heirs under his 'previous' will, offer the testimony of handwriting experts who state that the writing on the napkin looks nothing like JQ's writing but does look a lot like AQ's.
Assuming Florida law provides that handwritten wills are valid even in the absense of disinterested witnesses if the authenticity of the handwriting is proven (some states have such rules, though Florida might not), would it be legal for Judge Greer to award the entire estate to AQ on the state that his expert "proved" the authenticity of the will? Would it matter if the forgery was so poor that even a layperson who compared the will with known-authentic samples of JQ's and AQ's writings would regard it as an obvious fake?
Perhaps you misunderstood my metaphor. If someone's statements are transparent as glass, that means it's obvious that they're lying. I was making a pun on the word "clear".
And, btw, it's not true that every person in New York agrees with government spending as it does. In fact, I hear quite the opposite. There should be less programs being funded by the state of New York. People are outraged by all the programs. It's the city of New York, however, that has the greatest influence over the entire state. And as I said, it's the backroom deals made between the governor, a Rat and a pubbie. There really is no other representation, and that's because the elected pubbies are afraid of their own shadows in this state.
He decided, after more than a decade of judicial proceedings -- that, in fact, Schiavo was a PVS patient and that she clearly would not have wanted to be kept alive in that condition.
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.