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

Skip to comments.

Romney says government was wrong in Schiavo case
St. Petersburg Times ^ | March 11, 2007 | Adam C. Smith

Posted on 03/11/2007 7:40:49 PM PDT by EternalVigilance

TAMPA -- He's campaigning hard for support from Republican social conservatives, but presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Saturday he disagreed with the government's intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.

"I think it's probably best to leave these kinds of matters in the hands of the courts," Romney said in a television interview airing today.

(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: electionpresident; elections; euthanasia; judicialtyranny; moralabsolutes; romney; romneyschiavo; schiavo; shiavo; terri; terrischiavo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 941-951 next last
To: baubau
Sorry, supercat, but as much as would love to hear it I'm no expert on sounds/movies.
I did hower found the lyrics and I would post here for others to read if it's ok with you.

I've posted the lyrics enough times, I think, but thanks for the offer. If you can find a computer that can play those files, give them a listen. Even the low-bit-rate one sounds pretty good.

381 posted on 03/11/2007 11:01:01 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Read the guardian-ad-litem's report. She had three swallowing tests and failed them all. Some people in PVS can tolerate small amounts of saliva, but they can't take water or other liquids. Also, IIRC, the autopsy report confirmed that she would not have been able to swallow.


382 posted on 03/11/2007 11:02:37 PM PDT by retMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: shoebooty
From Wikipedia:
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution says: “No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....”

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says: “No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....

The Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process is applicable only to actions of the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment contains virtually the same phrase, but expressly applied to the states. The Supreme Court has basically interpreted the two clauses identically, as Justice Felix Frankfurter once explained in a concurring opinion: "To suppose that 'due process of law' meant one thing in the Fifth Amendment and another in the Fourteenth is too frivolous to require elaborate rejection."
Romney, a Harvard attorney/MBA, appears to know his Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Schiavo was simply the wrong test case for the pro-life crowd. This misstep was damaging to the anti-euthanasia movement and, I think, played a role in our '06 defeats. The voters decided the GOP had been in Washington too long if they were getting involved in something like the Schiavo case.
383 posted on 03/11/2007 11:03:52 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nowandlater
You can't deny it EV! If he was just an empty panderer then he would have either avoided the topic or he would taken a different position.

It is hard for me to imagine a more shameless panderer than Mitt Romney.

384 posted on 03/11/2007 11:04:19 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (With "Republicans" like these, who needs Democrats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: zarf
You're a liberal.to Buck W.

Obviously you and I got a totally different understanding of "...our government's main job is PROTECTING EACH CITIZEN." For example, I believe the government has the responsibility to protect us from foreign attacks. Therefore, they are charged with using all available defense technology, plus worldwide diplomacy to insure the safety of U.S. citizens.

I don't read in this statement a demand for government to support us in our daily lives.

385 posted on 03/11/2007 11:04:53 PM PDT by IIntense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: retMD

So, "Doc", do you recommend dehydrating to death your patients who can't swallow?


386 posted on 03/11/2007 11:05:44 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (With "Republicans" like these, who needs Democrats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: supercat

This one, too, got me tears rolling down my cheeks and sides of my nose.

She's got a smile that it seems to me
Reminds me of childhood memories
Where everything
Was as fresh as the bright blue sky
Now and then when I see her face
She takes me away to that
special place
And if I stared too long
I'd probably break down and cry
Sweet child o' mine
Sweet love of mine
She's got eyes of the bluest skies
As if they thought of rain
I hate to look into those eyes
And see an ounce of pain
Her hair reminds me
of a warm safe place
Where as a child I'd hide
And pray for the thunder
And the rain
To quietly pass me by
Sweet child o' mine
Sweet love of mine
Where do we go
Where do we go now
Where do we go
Sweet child o' mine
~ "Sweet Child O' Mine" -Copyright Guns N' Roses 1988


387 posted on 03/11/2007 11:06:14 PM PDT by baubau (BOYCOTT Bank of America for Issuing Credit Cards to 3rd World Illegal Aliens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Schiavo was simply the wrong test case for the pro-life crowd. This misstep was damaging to the anti-euthanasia movement and, I think, played a role in our '06 defeats. The voters decided the GOP had been in Washington too long if they were getting involved in something like the Schiavo case.

Can you offer any remotely plausible explanation as to how Terri may have come to be incapacitated without Michael Schiavo having grievously injured her?

The case against Scott Peterson was circumstantial as well, but I suspect he's probably rather jealous of Michael Schiavo.

388 posted on 03/11/2007 11:07:27 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
The Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process is applicable only to actions of the federal government.

A ridiculous assertion, foolishly applied. No one, the federal government, the states, or any individual, has the right to alienate the God-given rights to life, liberty or private property...of which the right to life is first and preeminent.

Never, in the founders' worst nightmares, did they ever dream that in America, otherwise intelligent people would argue that murder could be constitutional.

389 posted on 03/11/2007 11:11:18 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (With "Republicans" like these, who needs Democrats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

So, "Doc", do you recommend dehydrating to death your patients who can't swallow?

Foolish question. There's a big difference between "just can't swallow" and no higher brain function. If I had no higher brain function, had only brainstem reflexes, I would not want to be kept alive, and have so directed in writing. And if I were in that state, I wouldn't know the difference as to how I died.

390 posted on 03/11/2007 11:18:15 PM PDT by retMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Apparently that can be said for a few folks around here. Did anybody count up how many posts there are on this thread from people who don't know the judicial branch is a branch of the government? How many have never heard of the Fourteenth Amendment, or the Dred Scott decision that inspired it? Those few detractors who have heard of it, seem to believe there is an implied exception of any citizen incapable of standing up in court to assert those rights, due to age (too young or too old), or infirmity. I find that especially ironic, when reading the following from Justis Curtis' dissenting argument:

But it is insisted, that whatever other powers Congress may have respecting the territory of the United States, the subject of negro slavery forms an exception.

The Constitution declares that Congress shall have power to make 'all needful rules and regulations' respecting the territory belonging to the United States.

The assertion is, though the Constitution says all, it does not mean all-though it says all, without qualification, it means all except such as allow or prohibit slavery. It cannot be doubted that it is incumbent on those who would thus introduce an exception not found in the language of the instrument, to exhibit some solid and satisfactory reason, drawn from the subject-matter or the purposes and objects of the clause, the context, or from other provisions of the Constitution, showing that the words employed in this clause are not to be understood according to their clear, plain, and natural signification.

If you replace the words and phrases related to slavery, with words and phrases related to abortion and euthanasia, you have an accurate and up-to-date assessment of today's deniers of Constitutional Rights.
391 posted on 03/11/2007 11:19:39 PM PDT by BykrBayb (Be careful what you ask for, and even more careful what you demand. Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
...to keep the girl's parents from giving her a drink of water?

And in America. Who can imagine that a court would enforce this?

Then again, we don't have to look too far for other examples of court-ordered or court-sanctioned evils. As long as most of us who are outraged by many of the destructive decisions some of them make just wring our hands in frustration and anger, who's left to stand up to them?

392 posted on 03/11/2007 11:20:27 PM PDT by IIntense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: supercat

Can you offer any remotely plausible explanation as to how Terri may have come to be incapacitated without Michael Schiavo having grievously injured her?

Yes. arrhythmias.

393 posted on 03/11/2007 11:20:28 PM PDT by retMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Terri's husband was despicable, a man who wanted her to die so he could get some insurance money. It's one reason why this case became so emotionally charged.

Even so, we're constitutionalists supposedly. This is exactly what is meant by being a textual originalist on the Court.

Now, if you want to pass laws to apply to these issues as a whole and spell out all the criteria, then fine. But unless you do, keep Congress off the bench and keep the judges from legislating.

Still, you have to feel badly for Terri's parents. But there is little reason to believe she was really still with us at the time of her death.

One of the problems with the intervention in the Schiavo case is that once we start doing this, we're opening the door for outside parties and the government deciding these matters for us, not the immediate family. And Terri's immediate family was her despicable husband. Legally, that's what happens when you marry someone. When you marry them, they become the person who decides this for you if you are too incapacitated to speak up. If you want something else then you'd better leave a very specific document spelling out your wishes.
394 posted on 03/11/2007 11:21:29 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: retMD
Yes. arrhythmias.

And what would have caused them to occur once and never again?

395 posted on 03/11/2007 11:23:04 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: retMD

She had plenty of "function." She responded to, and enjoyed the company of, her family and friends. Anyone who tells you otherwise is pushing a pro-death agenda. I personally interviewed a number of people who all told me the same things about her responses.

But, in any case, mere men have no right to play God and determine when another should exit this vale of tears.


396 posted on 03/11/2007 11:24:17 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (With "Republicans" like these, who needs Democrats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

Great post, and amen.


397 posted on 03/11/2007 11:25:21 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (With "Republicans" like these, who needs Democrats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.




The Bill of Rights lists rights that The People have. There is no exception allowing the State's to deprive citizens of their rights.


398 posted on 03/11/2007 11:27:56 PM PDT by BykrBayb (Be careful what you ask for, and even more careful what you demand. Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: retMD

399 posted on 03/11/2007 11:30:15 PM PDT by Gelato (... a liberal is a liberal is a liberal ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
A ridiculous assertion, foolishly applied. No one, the federal government, the states, or any individual, has the right to alienate the God-given rights to life, liberty or private property...of which the right to life is first and preeminent.

Never, in the founders' worst nightmares, did they ever dream that in America, otherwise intelligent people would argue that murder could be constitutional.


The Founders lived in a time when medicine was little better than a morass of superstitions and often harmful practices. Like leeching poor George Washington to death.

But the Founders did specifically prohibit imposing death without due process which means the courts. They wanted a separation of powers between the branches. And the Founders did not believe in an unconditional right-to-life. They all supported the death penalty.

It was up to the courts to determine the matter. If the people disagree with the courts, they should elect state and federal legislators to define the law more specifically to suit their wishes.

This case was a perfect example of 'hard cases make bad law'. And although test cases are important, you should never let any branch of government run wild over the outcome of a single individual's case. Particularly if that individual had entrusted these decisions to a scumbag husband and left no other documents to guide the courts.
400 posted on 03/11/2007 11:34:45 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 941-951 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