Michael Schiavo Files Request With the SCOTUS, USSC Refuses to Take Schiavo Case

[ConservativeMan55]

Mod note: Calls for violence will result in suspensions

Michael Schiavo has filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking them to stay out of the case.

[Salvation]

Can the medical records as well as Greer the Corrupt be subpoenaed?

[MineralMan]

"I can't believe I'm hearing so many people who are willing to throw away our entire system over this one person.

2Then the detachment of troops and the captain and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound Him. 13And they led Him away to Annas first, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas who was high priest that year. 14Now it was Caiaphas who advised the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people."

---

Terri Schiavo is not Jesus, and this is not the Israel of 2000 years ago.

[EX52D]

I wish I had the answer to that...anyone else?

[Arrowhead1952]

If what is happening to Terri is wrong, then laws need to be changed.

I think not only the laws need to be changed, but we must have the US Senate confirm FAIR judges who don't legislate from the bench.

I hope the Republicans in Congress take whatever measures are needed to confirm judges President Bush has nominated. I don't care if they use the "Nuclear option", which is actually the LAW not just an option as the left is says.

[MWS]

Ok. I posted this as a seperate thread and it is only connected to the Schiavo case as a side note, but the mod told me here that I ought to keep these types of comments on one thread, so here it goes:

Two hundred thirty nine years ago, there was a revolution. A collection of English colonies in North America decided to overthrow the tyranny of their far away king and trade it for self rule. In their great struggle, these men waged not one but two revolutions: one for independence from a far off motherland and one for a republican form of government, free from the dictates of nobility and royalty. They replaced rule by king with the concept of rule of law, which was decided upon by the people for the people. As time passed, a Constitution was written that would strengthen the greater unity of the nation, ensure the freedoms of the people, and delineate the powers of the government. The government would be split into three branches, with checks and balances over one another so as to prevent one branch from overtaking the other two. In this manner tyranny was to be avoided.

Relatively early in the history of the United States, the judiciary began establishing itself as the final interpreter of the Constitution. It bolstered itself with decisions such as Marbury v. Madison, which established greater power for the Supreme Court to judge the constitutionality of Congressional laws. In more recent times, the courts have begun to take it upon themselves to determine what the Constitution says and does not say, even in the face of clear wording. Judges have begun placing liberal social morals on the level of law, reading them into the Constitution as existing implicitly in some cases, while looking abroad to buttress them with foreign laws in others.

The judiciary has set itself in such a position so as to lead one to think that it believes it has become the law in itself. Based simply on personal views rationalized by farfetched leaps of logic involving foreign laws, "implied" but unwritten Constitutional clauses, and past fiats, the courts take it upon themselves to make laws and remove laws based simply on a whim when the opportunity presents itself. The judiciary has done a masterful job of usurping the role of the other two branches of government, ultimately dictating what the other two can and cannot do. They do this while blocking the checks and balances the legislative and executive branches should be able to exercise over judges by declaring such actions as "unconstitutional" or "against the law". And they call this unlawfulness "rule of law"!

It is beyond dispute that judges have moved beyond the exercise of a valid judiciary role in society towards actively imposing their will on this country by fiat, against the will of the people themselves. They have set up situations where the people must obtain supermajorities in order to pass constitutional amendments so that they can offset the will of a small group of judges! When the founders of this country fought their great revolution, and when men gave their blood in the wars thereafter, they did not do so in order to prop up a tyranny of judges, but rather that the people might govern themselves!

Judicial activism is responsible for the great dividing issues of our day. Judicial activism is responsible for the great national divide over issues such as abortion and homosexual marriage. The crux of the problem in the Terri Schiavo case, and the main reason little is being done by the federal courts, is that the upper courts are too busy protecting the jurisdiction of the lower courts to take the type to consider new evidence in the case. The case has directly pitted the judiciary against the legislative and executive branches, the judiciary is winning, and the judiciary knows that it will be weakened if it does not stand by the decisions passed by the lower courts.

The strong hand of the judiciary does not benefit conservatism in the long run. As has been noted in many places, activist judges have become the manner in which liberals have chosen to enact their vision of what they believe America should be. When liberals speak of jettisoning the Second Amendment and the Electoral College, they know full well that these will never be done away with through the constitutional amendment process. Liberals are counting on the judiciary to eventually declare them antiquated and unnecessary in our modern world. They want to paint these fundamentals to our Republic as not only outdated but harmful, thus giving the judiciary no choice but to protect us from ourselves. It seems at times as though if nothing is done to curtail these abuses of judicial power soon, we will reach a point where nothing can be done at all.

This country is in dire need of judicial reform. When activist judges feel free to run amok imposing their agendas on the people without facing the censure of the checks and balances built into the system, it seems incumbent upon us as Americans to remind them of their places. If we care about this issue, we should take action to show where we stand: we should take part in the March for Justice II in DC on April 7th, we should write letters to the editor decrying the judicial situation in this country, we should contact our local Congressmen demanding that action of some sort be taken! It is far better to take a stand than to sit around while being stood on!

A three-legged table cannot stand in a stable manner if one of the legs is far longer than the others. It's our responsibility to make sure that the leg does not become too long, lest the table fall.

[Dave S]

Will more people realize that the pleadings to Federal Court were wrong or am I talking to the wind for the most part. The Feds ruled on what was before them -- end of story!

Agreed and if the courts had ever allowed the stay giving Terri's people the right to reinsert the feeding tube, the law itself would have been struck down as unconstitutional as it applies to only one person. Every legal scholar agreed that the law was no good and the only way it would have worked is if the courts just winked at it.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Then why is the law as written and enforced by Greer saying "no food or water even by mouth"? That is monstrous, and TERRIfying.

[underwiredsupport]

Romans 1:28-32

And even as they did not think fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right, being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; being full of envy, murder, quarrels, deceit, evil habits, becoming whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, perfidious, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but have pleasure in those practicing them.

[conservativebabe]

FANTASTIC!

[blackie]

"Your statement is not true, the decision to remove or continue life support, in absence of explicit documentation from the patient, falls on the next of kin."

It's that way in California an Oregon, too.

[DCPatriot]

What I meant was that when Terri had her unfortunate episode which deprived her brain of oxygen...it must follow that your Christian beliefs are such that it was God's Will at that point.

That was His way of calling Terri home. Whoever placed the tube in her interrupted God's Will.

Can't have it both ways.

[MWS]

Thank you! :)

[gruffwolf]

My living will states that I would not want to be kept alive.

That's what I choose.

I'm sure my postings in this matter are colored by my personal feelings. I wouldn't want to live like that, period. And I hope my wife would honor my wishes. I would want her to be happy, not care for me for the rest of her life.

And what's wrong with a terminally ill person deciding they want to die peacefully instead of suffering for any number of years? That is their decision to make, not yours. Kevorkian wasn't going around killing indiscriminately, all those people asked for his help.

[Luis Gonzalez]

When did they?

[eleni121]

All this goes to show that it was never about women's "rights" or "prisoners rights' or rights for anyone/anything; instead the objective remains developing a socialist nation using/exploiting the judiciary, foundations, whacked out guilt-ridden billionaires like Soros and others, using anyone and anything to build a socialist atheist state, step by step and in league with America's enemies as a means to achieving this.

The end of the Soviet Empire was simply a stage...nothing more and nothing less...and Terri's body (and the legal precedence - brilliantly if devilishly conceived) is a stepping stone to this end.

[Raycpa]

I believe Terry is better off in Heaven.

That isn't the issue. The issue is what does God command us to do? Where did he command us that we are to starve the hungry and dehydrate the thirsty ?

God calls us all to come to him and when we do we want to do his will. His will isn't to help starve and dehydrate others to death.

[Miss Behave]

"Then why is the law as written and enforced by Greer saying "no food or water even by mouth"? That is monstrous, and TERRIfying."

SO revealing.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Dave S thinks you worry too damn much, too. He's got this all figured out. Nothing to see here. Move along.

[MizSterious]

Good one--but I have my doubts as to whether that one even possesses a heart.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Terri Schiavo is not Jesus

That may be so, but you're hardly the man to ask.