Posted on 09/13/2007 2:36:33 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
That's exactly the way he justified his bad immigration votes to Laura Ingraham the other day.
Hell, no one would let Romney get away with that.
Is she dead?
That’s different. Thompson wasn’t involved in the Schiavo case. Romney, however, was very much involved in his own liberal positions.
Sounds like he’s trying to sidestep the issue.
Ya know something?
I have an opinion on it. If I were running for President, I’d say “no opinion” too.
Know why?
Because of the very way conservatives behaved on both sides of the issue about this very case, right here on FR.
No matter what you say, you’re going to have half the conservative movement freaking out at you.
I for one think he’s smart for having a “no comment” opinion on it.
Ha ha - good counterpunch. So Thompson doesn’t have to have an opinion on anything he wasn’t involved with? Quite slick... and they say Romney is slick. Maybe we have a team. Heh.
Of course he is! See post 25.
Unfortunately I have to agree with you, even though I think the courts in Florida handled it wrong from the start. There was clearly a conflict of interest when the husband spent all the money that was initially awarded purportedly to provide her care on trying to have her life ended instead. Had the care and therapy that the settlement money was supposed to pay for been provided, she might not have deteriorated into her so-called permanent vegetative state.
Yes, but I suspect he really does have an opinion.
“But how much do we REALLY know about that case?”
Not necessary to know tons. I think you should always “err” on the side of life. Added to that, Terri’s parents were ready, willing and able to support her. Her husband wanted her dead — for years, apparently.
I think you're right about making your wishes known -- and in clear detail. On a personal level, get your wishes in writing and make them known to your family members. On a governmental level, elect officials who will make good laws, and a elect a president who will appoint thoughtful conservatives to the Bench. On a spiritual level, pray that a situation like this will not arise again, but know that when all is said and done, God is in control.
But to me, when it comes to life and death issues, especially potentially saving lives, the government has an obligation to protect citizens, when state and local authorities cannot or will not.
I couldn’t agree more. The question is, What would have been the proper way for the Federal government to intervene in this case?
I favor the idea of executive action. The legislature trying to legislate an override of a court ruling isn’t appropriate. The Supreme Court can’t respond quickly enough to save a life. The Governor of Florida and the President of the US were both endowed with the pardon power to allow them to override a court decision to prevent a miscarriage of Justice.
Jeb Bush showed a real lack of gonads to bow to the court order telling him not to act. The governor could have had the National Guard enforce any order he gave.
Likewise GWB could have intervened via executive order coupled with an interpretation of his power of pardon that gave him the moral authority to vacate ANY court decision that condemns someone to death.
If Bush had checked out the matter personally and made a decision whether intervention was needed or not I would respect him more than I do. He seemed unaware of his moral responsibility in this case.
Get rid of the Department of Education and save tens of billions of dollars. We did fine without one for 200 years.
So do I. And I won’t say it either if I run for office. We can argue right and wrong, but politically, there’s no right answer that won’t piss off half your own base.
True.
You do make a point. And the State of Florida didn’t handle it properly.
What I don’t remember (and probably what Fred doesn’t remember) is the legality regarding the parents vs. the husband.
That is very well said. You’re much more articulate than I am as well. :)
the schiavo case had so many factors that there really was no right answer. do you base it on medical, religious, spousal, next of kin, ethical issues? there was no right outcome. personally, i think they should have been leaglly divorced and the parents left to make the decision about terry's life.
The right answer is that the right to live or die ought to be with the patient. The problem in Schiavo was that there was no clear evidence of the patient’s intent, and so the courts substituted their own judgment for that of the patient, which is clearly wrong.
You put that much better than I could’ve! :P
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.