Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rift emerges in GOP after Schiavo case
Boston Globe ^ | April 9, 2005 | Nina J. Easton

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: judges; judicialmurder; judiciary; schiavo; schindler; terri; terrischiavo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 361-380 next last
To: Jorge

What was the "clear and convincing evidence" in Terri's case? I must have missed it.


101 posted on 04/09/2005 6:27:37 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

It's hard to argue intelligently with someone who refuses to acknowledge facts.


102 posted on 04/09/2005 6:29:45 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

Your ignorance of principles is astounding.

And consistent.


103 posted on 04/09/2005 6:30:25 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

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.





104 posted on 04/09/2005 6:30:45 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ndt
Will it result in a mass exodus to the libertarian party?

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.

105 posted on 04/09/2005 6:32:46 PM PDT by supercat ("Though her life has been sold for corrupt men's gold, she refuses to give up the ghost.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
And I firmly believe a person's written wish for end-of-life treatment should be honored. I just don't think we should presume to know the unknowable.

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.

106 posted on 04/09/2005 6:35:53 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
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.

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?

107 posted on 04/09/2005 6:37:53 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Change the law that makes the spouse responsible as the primary caretaker

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.

108 posted on 04/09/2005 6:39:58 PM PDT by supercat ("Though her life has been sold for corrupt men's gold, she refuses to give up the ghost.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

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.)


109 posted on 04/09/2005 6:41:04 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

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.


110 posted on 04/09/2005 6:41:21 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
What was the "clear and convincing evidence" in Terri's case? I must have missed it.

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.

111 posted on 04/09/2005 6:43:22 PM PDT by supercat ("Though her life has been sold for corrupt men's gold, she refuses to give up the ghost.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
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.)

If they didn't represent the people who elected them, then they wouldn't be re-elected into office.

112 posted on 04/09/2005 6:45:02 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
the real culprits: the judges who defied the law

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.

113 posted on 04/09/2005 6:46:02 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

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.


114 posted on 04/09/2005 6:49:29 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: supercat
I feel as if I'm wasting my time trying to give you facts. Surely you must be aware that Terri's husband decided after receiving the settlement money that she wouldn't want to have a feeding tube. He had the other woman waiting for Terri's death. Can't you understand he had reason to lie to the court? There was no other corroborating evidence (other than his brother and sister, conveniently) to say what Terri wanted. Her family believed she wanted to live. She was not, I repeat, not brain-dead. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
115 posted on 04/09/2005 6:50:09 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
Your ignorance of principles is astounding. And consistent.

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.

116 posted on 04/09/2005 6:50:44 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Let me offer you a hypothetical I've given in another thread, and tell me your opinion.

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?

117 posted on 04/09/2005 6:52:26 PM PDT by supercat ("Though her life has been sold for corrupt men's gold, she refuses to give up the ghost.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
I feel as if I'm wasting my time trying to give you facts.

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".

118 posted on 04/09/2005 6:54:03 PM PDT by supercat ("Though her life has been sold for corrupt men's gold, she refuses to give up the ghost.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

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.


119 posted on 04/09/2005 6:55:44 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Not "they" believered him. Greer believed him, or at least said he did.

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.

120 posted on 04/09/2005 6:59:53 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 361-380 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson