Posted on 04/09/2005 3:48:54 PM PDT by FairOpinion
However, the number ONE enemy IS the JUDICIARY, no doubt about it.
I think instead of recriminations against Bush and Bush, who did everything they could
Jeb did not do everything he could! His ordinary powers as Governor allowed him to call out the guard in order to enforce state laws, for one..
Jeb pulled a pontious pilate on Terri, and gave his tacit approval of her execution by REFUSING and publicly LYING that he didn't have the power to do more.
Thought you'd be interested in this thread.
George Bush believes in doing everything decently and in order. I am leaving the timing to him.
"Have you been reading the posts on the Terri threads?"
Yes there is a rift.
The case of Terri Schiavo was not the cause of the rift, it was just an example that illustrated it well. It was a case that highlighted the differences between conservatives who believe in states rights over federal powers and those who do only when it suits their needs; between conservatives who believe in personal freedom over government control and those who prefer strong government control over life's most personal aspects so as long as they don't get taxed.
And you know what happens then? The damn breaks.....
Vielen Dank! :) (And now, we've exhausted my knowledge of the German tongue).
Thank you!
And between those who believe in the constitutionally grounded right of patients to refuse extraordinary life-saving medical treatment, and those who want to revoke that right to serve their simplistic, one-dimensional so-called "pro-life" views.
There is definitely a rift.
Dammmm... cover your mouth when you sneeze !!! ;-))
.
I agree. I think it's going to be a battle regarding the courts. As long as there are judges who refuse to follow the Constitution, we will continue to live under judicial tyranny. I believe a big part of the reason the Dems and the media are after DeLay right now is because of his statements regarding the courts. Looks to me like the Dems are running scared and that can only be a good sign.
Michael Schiavo could not have accomplished what he did without the express assistance of Judge Greer. With an independent judge hearing the petition to have him removed as Terri's guardian, the ruling would have been different and Terri most likely would still be alive. Greer was wrong (legally and morally) to not remove Michael when he was living with another woman and producing children with her.
You nailed it.
An excellent analysis here:
Impeach all Judges in the Terri Schiavo Case [MUST READ]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1380607/posts
The federal courts obstinately refused in the Schiavo matter to employ a jurisprudence of constitutionally protected inalienable rights mandated by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, the rights model of original American jurisprudence from the era of the Founders, and as extended to state misconduct by the 14th Amendment.
The federal courts refused to judicially notice that we prosecuted people for war crimes at Nuremberg for the very sorts of actions taken and required by the Florida state courts in clear violation of the original meaning of inalienable rights and due process of law.
Under our federal union, there has never been a power in any state to execute anyone not convicted of a crime and who has not been indicted and/or tried criminally. Under our federal union and under the constitutions and bills of rights of every individual state, the right to life is inalienable. At the state level, that right can only be lost by an individual person through an act of wrongdoing constituting a forfeiture and adjudicated as such through a criminal trial where due process would apply. Executing an innocent person through a civil process is ultra vires by definition and has been ultra vires for over two hundred years of American experience. Having occurred in the Schiavo matter, the question is not one of due process because there can be no such process, period. Where such occurs, as it has here, it is an act of state tyranny by definition, the ground upon which we fired the king of England.
"and those who want to revoke that right to serve their simplistic, one-dimensional so-called "pro-life" views.
You call being "pro-life" simplistic and one-dimensional? What do you call being "pro-death"?
It also seemed to display (vividly) the differences between those who believe that we all have the right to life, as opposed to those who would stand by and allow an innocent woman to be executed. Sorry, but I have no respect for the latter.
Since when is food and water "extraordinary life saving measures?"
For the MILLIONTH TIME:
1. Terri did NOT refuse "extraordinary life-saving medical treatment".
2. FOOD and WATER are NOT and "extraordinary life-saving medical treatment"
I'm all for going after the judges, but do any Republican leaders besides Tom Delay agree?
Rick Santorum expressed the same idea as Tom DeLay -- that we must not let the judges get away with thumbing their noses at the US Congress.
Congress makes laws, judges are supposed to interpret them, judges aren't supposed to make laws and ignore laws they don't like.
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.