Posted on 03/11/2007 7:40:49 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
That doesn't sound like a judical supremacist to me.
I know you didn't mean Schindler.... ;^)
I recognize other posters who, I believe operate the same way. I also recognize a number of posters who wish that I and those of the same persuasion would shut up and stop presenting our points of view. For some reason, they seem to see my position as threatening to something or another. I can't quite figure out what.
I am not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but I try to be in line with what those brilliant men who founded this nation had in mind. And, I cannot imagine that they could have envisioned that their legacy would include state sanctioned denial of life of the unborn and invalids.
>> "Don't go looking for an activist judge to fit your
>> moral absolutes."
>
> That isn't even close to what actually happened
That seems to me to be precisely what happened. Then, when no such judge could be found, the protesters turned the Congress of the United States into even more of a circus than it usually is in order to change the law for one person, one time. Predictably, this did no good, but just made the Congress even more an object of scorn and ridicule than it normally is.
I guess you missed that little word "generally" in his comment. Weasel words negate the rest of the sentence.
Hmmm...an interview for a Tampa Bay, Florida local newscast....wonder if the interviewer asked the question?! I continue to be mystified by how people make assumptions about reality based on a thread post. It's possible, but highly unlikely Romney made a special point to 'bring this up', to volunteer an answer to an unasked question.
Reading the rest of the article, Romney says "I generally think that it's not a good idea for courts to legislate. Nor is it great idea for legislatures to adjudicate in a specific circumstance...". "I generally think that it's not a good idea for courts to legislate. Nor is it great idea for legislatures to adjudicate in a specific circumstance,"
This happens to be an issue we obviously disagree upon.
I always enjoy your posts.
Was Terri Schiavo denied equal protection under law on the basis of her disability? Congress is given the power under Amendment XIV to pass legislation necessary to prevent such denial. While the particular form of legislation passed was not the best, it had far more justification under the Constitution than a lot of the other junk Congress passes.
"Why"?, I ask. Have the human beings who serve on the courts been gifted with some supernatural intelligence which makes them error-free?
"These things", in this case, refer to someone's right to life and Romney apparently is willing to put our lives in the courts' hands.
Yet, responding to Chris Matthews's question on the gay marriage issue in MA (Hardball Aug.05), Romney responds by saying that when a court overreaches it's bounds (my emphasis), it's pretty hard to overturn that.
If he accused the courts of "overreaching their bounds" in deciding that Terri Schiavo was better off dead, will someone tell me where I can read that. I want to be fair.
The Founding Fathers believed that governments existed to secure people's inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or at least they signed a document stating such.
Telling.
If he accused the courts of "overreaching their bounds" in deciding that Terri Schiavo was better off dead, will someone tell me where I can read that. I want to be fair.
Good luck with that.
lol, are you challenging me to a duel?
Well, this I know - the %^#$@ Congress has unjustly deprived me of one hour of sleep this weekend. So, I must sleep now and try to avoid the worst of it tomorrow. I have enjoyed the discussions tonight
Romney is "spot-on" in this remark. Congress has absolutely no business interfering with the courts. They may try to pass some laws to change things but it is a terribe precedent to step into the middle of it.
Romney, dispite of you and the rest of his detractors around here, is gaining momentum. I think he is one of the best choices out there in the field that is running. As I have stated before, the more I see him, the more I like him. I think he will have the same effect on the rest of the country. He is largely unknown....unlike Rudy & McCain.
Should Fred Thomson run....hmmm?
Since when does the "right wing" want the government interfering in family business?
I wonder if Scott Peterson tried that argument?
Maybe Tom Delay will run. Is he still out on bail..?
I just find it ironic to see FReepers arguing for state control over family decisions, particularly in this case, in which the rule of law prevailed. When it comes to government, feed the cub and live with the tiger.
Man hug here - I am very sleepy. Night all :)
LOL!!
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.