To: Don Joe
What you're asking Bush to do is start a Revolution. You think I'm kidding. I'm not kidding. He would have to send in troops, at which point Greer would order him arrested, and make no mistake, he WOULD be arrested. And then the troops would be told by the Judge to stop and go home, and the order for Terri's death would continue.
If Bush tried any other challenge at the Judge, there would then be a dispute between them, would there not?
And who do you call when there is a dispute? A Judge.
Bush knows that by law anything he did would be settled by another, and actually probably the SAME, Judge. If a higher court refused to hear it (which they did, and THEY are the ones you should be mad at), then GREER would be the one to decide if Bush could challenge Greer!
The comparison to sending troops to Tripoli isn't even remotely connected to anything I'm saying. Now if Tripoli had been ruled by an American Judge, then it might have bearing.
The executive branch and legislative branch wield a lot of power... against anyone EXCEPT an American Judge. They have more power to invade another country than they do to challenge a Judge.
There is nothing Bush can do except start Civil War II.
Have you ever seen the executive branch or legislative branch successfully challenge a Judge in your lifetime? I know I haven't. You can see Judges take down mayors, governors, representatives, senators... they can even throw out voter referendums... but when have you ever seen a Judge's decree overturned except by another Judge?
You're missing the most important lesson of this whole thing. It's going right over your head. And the Tyranny of the Judiciary will continue, because you CAN'T attack the Judge who is killing Terri. You can't even touch him with a lawyer. It was tried. And who got to rule on whether Greer could do what he did? Greer.
So you'll hurt who you -can- hurt. Jeb. Even though it's not Jeb hurting Terri, it's Greer. But you know you can't hurt Greer. You can hurt Jeb. And yet, you think it's Jeb that has the power. And you don't see the irony.
Qwinn
310 posted on
10/18/2003 2:16:53 AM PDT by
Qwinn
To: Qwinn
I thought so much better of Scalia. That the Supreme Court refused to hear this makes me wonder if you may not be very correct.
361 posted on
10/18/2003 4:36:37 PM PDT by
ChemistCat
(Bought the cats a new scratching-couch. It looks great so far.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson