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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 941-951 next last
To: CindyDawg
I am kind of impressed that he actually answered a tough question.
41
posted on
03/11/2007 7:59:42 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(Peace without victory is a temporary illusion.)
To: shoebooty
It was PURE politics. It was a strip tease for the base....period.
42
posted on
03/11/2007 7:59:43 PM PDT
by
zarf
(Her hair was of a dank yellow, and fell over her temples like sauerkraut......)
To: shoebooty
I can best make decisions for me and my kin. Not in Florida, you can't.
43
posted on
03/11/2007 8:00:32 PM PDT
by
don-o
(Fight, fight. fight to drive the GOP to the right!!!!)
To: EternalVigilance
44
posted on
03/11/2007 8:00:59 PM PDT
by
DCPatriot
("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon))
To: EternalVigilance
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
Ummmmm, if the federal government has three branches: the executive, legislative, and judicial....how is leaving it up to the judicial branch keeping government out? Why is it ok to have one part of government get involved but not the others if they are all equal branches?
45
posted on
03/11/2007 8:01:04 PM PDT
by
icwhatudo
(The rino borg...is resistance futile?)
To: don-o
SO who should have decided?
To: KevinDavis
WELL THAT WAS THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION NOT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!! Well, the federal Constitution does contain the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, which protects folks from being killed by their government without conviction for a capital crime. Or at least it once did. When Jeb Bush refused to act, his brother had a duty to step in and enforce the Bill of Rights.
47
posted on
03/11/2007 8:01:16 PM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(With "Republicans" like these, who needs Democrats?)
To: Buck W.
What part of "promote the general Welfare" means NOT protecting the citizens of the USA? I don't mean give them entitlements, I mean the basics, like LIFE.
48
posted on
03/11/2007 8:01:23 PM PDT
by
pillut48
(CJ in TX (Bible Thumper and Proud!))
To: KevinDavis
"
I thought we all believed in small government..." Murdering your citizens doesn't give you small government, it gives you a small population, and a place in hell. Well deserved, I might add.
49
posted on
03/11/2007 8:01:25 PM PDT
by
editor-surveyor
(Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
To: KevinDavis
Congress had no business with the Terri Schiavo affair...What exactly did congress do? Give her access to the courts? That is not infringing on another branch of government. They(congress) can do whatever they damn well please as long as it doesn't interfere with another branch of government. They are supposed to pass whatever laws they want.
50
posted on
03/11/2007 8:01:50 PM PDT
by
MovementConservative
(The US will win in Iraq. Thank you all US troops.)
To: cripplecreek
To: EternalVigilance
52
posted on
03/11/2007 8:02:58 PM PDT
by
NonValueAdded
(Prevent Glo-Ball Warming ... turn out the sun when not in use)
To: shoebooty
I knew what you meant. ;^)
53
posted on
03/11/2007 8:03:13 PM PDT
by
DCPatriot
("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon))
To: EternalVigilance
You think the CONGRESS should have been involved in this?
What if the CONGRESS told you that you should end the life of your child?
54
posted on
03/11/2007 8:04:02 PM PDT
by
msnimje
(Anybody know of a good CONSERVATIVE website like the one Free Republic used to be?)
To: cripplecreek
don't hide, your post is correct - semantics aside. the reaction by Congress was "out of scope", but it was precipitated by an unyielding approach to the case by the entire judiciary, from the lowest court in florida all the way to the top. that was the big problem I had with the case - the conduct of the judiciary.
To: shoebooty
It was a state's rights issue, not for the federales. The right to life is the preeminent God-given, unalienable right. Its protection is at the very heart of the Bill of Rights in the Fifth Amendment. It also happens to be spelled out in the Florida constitution, as it is in every state constitution, in Article One, Section Two of that document.
56
posted on
03/11/2007 8:05:02 PM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(With "Republicans" like these, who needs Democrats?)
To: zarf
No, I'm not. I've actually *read* the Constitution and the rights that belong to each of America's citizens. I'm not talking about entitlements. LIFE is not an entitlement.
57
posted on
03/11/2007 8:05:30 PM PDT
by
pillut48
(CJ in TX (Bible Thumper and Proud!))
To: MovementConservative
They interfered with states rights. And yes congress can pass any law that want to. If they pass a lwa that says everyone must wear their underwear on their head every second Tuesday of the month, and the president signs it, they can do it. But that does not maker it RIGHT or SMART!
To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
Mitt just lost me.Me too.
59
posted on
03/11/2007 8:06:16 PM PDT
by
vox_freedom
(John 16:2 yea, the hour come, that whosoever killeth you, will think that he doth a service to God)
Comment #60 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson