Posted on 04/09/2005 4:58:13 PM PDT by tutstar
"Brillant didn't prove the point at all. She pointed you towards The Florida Supreme Court ruling on the October 2003 Terri's Law."
Thank you Pepper777 .. I wonder why Brillant would do that ..??
Brilliant: Would you like to explain ..??
Because .. I've found out we're talking about 2 entirely different pieces of legislation .. which Pepper777 has now pointed out to me.
The new law which was just passed in Congress - HAS NOT BEEN RULED UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.
I did not know that you were talking only about the fed. statute. They both have the same problem, though. They both apply only to Schiavo. That was the reason they declared the first law unconstitutional. After they had such great success with the first one, they decided to try it again. It just shows what I said to begin with--they knew it would be thrown out. The conservatives just got whatever they could get passed. The liberals made sure it would be unconstitutional.
The federal courts never had a chance to deal directly with the constitutionality of the federal statute, but one of the 3 judges on the 11th Circuit (the most conservative one, who was appointed by Bush, Sr.) wrote a concurring opinion stating that if they'd had the chance to rule on constitutionality, they would have ruled it's unconstitutional.
"It just shows what I said to begin with--they knew it would be thrown out."
PLEASE SHOW EVIDENCE TO ME THAT THE NEW LAW WAS - (as you say) THROWN OUT! That means show me proof that the USSC specifically took this law as a case and declared it UN-Constitutional.
IT WASN'T - IT WAS JUST THAT THE 11th CIRCUIT COURT (and all the other fed courts) REFUSED TO OBEY IT - AND .. JUST BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO OBEY IT DOESN'T MEAN IT WAS UN-CONSTITUTIONAL OR WAS THROWN OUT.
Geeeeee ... then I was right all along - IT HAS NOT BEEN RULED UN-CONSTITUTIONAL. Thank you!
And .. of course they would have ruled it Un-Constitutional - because they didn't want to conform to what the Congress told them to do - because that would have given power to Congress OVER THEM. They could not allow that to happen.
yup, what really ticks me off is that the "conservative" judge (appointed by Bush, Sr.) went to a lot of trouble to write a gratuitous opinion lambasting the President and Congress for passing the legislation. Judge's aren't supposed to give their opinions on matters that they aren't deciding--particularly constitutional matters. What it shows is that you can't trust the judiciary. Even the so-called "Republican" judges are nothing but RINOs.
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.