[Spiff]

Well, that was what the Constitution said. Don't blame the courts for refusing to engage in judicial activism in the Dred Scott case. You're so fond of State laws, you tell me what his home state said about starving slaves at the time.

Your response makes it obvious that you would have stood idly by or even supported Irene Emerson if she had decided to dehydrate or starve Dred Scott, his wife, and his children to death. I mean, the laws said it was OK so it must be OK.

You seem to be forgetting that the laws and the Constitution were enacted for a higher purpose than just providing order and controlling people. This country, the Constitution, and the laws do not exist just to exist. There was a purpose upon which our course was set by the Founding Fathers. If that purpose is forgotten and the laws are twisted to serve another, then the Republic is lost and therewith freedom.

[Modernman]

Your response makes it obvious that you would have stood idly by or even supported Irene Emerson if she had decided to dehydrate or starve Dred Scott, his wife, and his children to death.

My point is:

(1) In the Dred Scott case, the courts refused to engage in judicial activism to strike down a law that they did not like. You criticize them for that.

(2) In the Schiavo case, you attack the Florida Supreme Court for striking down a law that they did not like and accuse them of judicial activism.

So, which is it, do you want activist courts or courts that follow the law, no matter what their personal feelings might be?