Skip to comments.
Fla. judge won't hear Schiavo arguments
World Magazine ^
| Mar 24, 2995
| MITCH STACY AP
Posted on 03/24/2005 11:26:36 AM PST by AliVeritas
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
To: AliVeritas
"Facts, We don't wants to hear no stinking facts!"
2
posted on
03/24/2005 11:27:36 AM PST
by
FormerACLUmember
(Honoring Saint Jude's assistance every day.)
To: AliVeritas
Why did Bush bother going to the court for permission rather than just seizing Terri?
3
posted on
03/24/2005 11:28:43 AM PST
by
Barney Gumble
(http://purveyors-of-truth.blogspot.com/)
To: Barney Gumble
Why did Bush bother going to the court for permission rather than just seizing Terri?
Because they are spineless political hacks.
4
posted on
03/24/2005 11:29:41 AM PST
by
ARCADIA
(Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
To: Barney Gumble
And when is this judge going to be removed from office?
5
posted on
03/24/2005 11:30:14 AM PST
by
LadyJMayo
To: ARCADIA
"The Supreme Court has made it's decision, now let them enforce it." - Andrew Jackson
6
posted on
03/24/2005 11:30:21 AM PST
by
GOPcapitalist
("Marxism finds it easy to ally with Islamic zealotism" - Ludwig von Mises)
To: ARCADIA
Its called Checks and Balances!
7
posted on
03/24/2005 11:30:26 AM PST
by
kaktuskid
To: kaktuskid
Its called Checks and Balances!
That is precisely why the legislature and the executive must act against the judiciary. They have an independent duty to act.
8
posted on
03/24/2005 11:31:49 AM PST
by
ARCADIA
(Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
To: AliVeritas
I just heard one of the attorneys interviewed on Fox. He said that Federal District Judge Whitmore has asked for briefs by 3 p.m. on the issue of whether the Florida statutory scheme that allows the removal of the intubation is constitutional since it does not provide any guidelines to the Court in application of the statute. Did anyone else hear this?
9
posted on
03/24/2005 11:32:11 AM PST
by
Pinetop
To: Barney Gumble
>>Why did Bush bother going to the court for permission rather than just seizing Terri?<<<
Probably because he does not want to defy the rulings of federal and state judges. We cannot have government officials running amuck, there has to be some law and order here. Remember Elian? How many of you were pleased with officials seizing him?
10
posted on
03/24/2005 11:32:57 AM PST
by
rockabyebaby
(If you're not part of the solution, YOU ARE the problem.)
To: Barney Gumble
could be the cover of asking first also; when asked at a press conference the governor's counsel believed they had the authority. It could be that by saying that in public they hoped to indicate their end game...who knows.
11
posted on
03/24/2005 11:33:19 AM PST
by
WoodstockCat
(W2 !!! Four more Years!!)
To: AliVeritas
Even some liberal legal commentators this morning were saying that on the state agency issue the executive branch has the better argument, just as teh judiciary was in a good position to uphold the judge's earlier rulings. IF the federal judge is an honest man, he might find this rebuff of the state agency violated Terri's rights.
12
posted on
03/24/2005 11:33:30 AM PST
by
Williams
To: rockabyebaby
"We cannot have government officials running amuck, there has to be some law and order here."
This arguement was made at the Nuremburg trials.
13
posted on
03/24/2005 11:35:48 AM PST
by
Warlord
To: LadyJMayo
I live in Pinellas Park. He was challeneged by an opponent who hammered Greer on the Schiavo case and outspent and out advertized Greer by over 400 to 1. The campaign was based upon Greer mishandling the case. That being said, Greer was re-elected last November with 65% of the vote with heavy turnout. Greer also had an (R) next to his name, not a (D) as some may suspect.
14
posted on
03/24/2005 11:35:48 AM PST
by
doc30
(Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
To: GOPcapitalist
15
posted on
03/24/2005 11:36:16 AM PST
by
My2Cents
(America is divided along issues of morality, between the haves and the have-nots.)
To: rockabyebaby
I wasn't pleased, but it was legal.
Jeb's action would be legal, as well.
And other people other than me wouldn't be pleased. Too bad.
16
posted on
03/24/2005 11:36:38 AM PST
by
ColoCdn
(Neco eos omnes, Deus suos agnoset)
To: FormerACLUmember
"Facts, We don't wants to hear no stinking facts!" Apparently none of the ravin' nutters need facts, hysterics and hyperbole seem to suffice.
17
posted on
03/24/2005 11:38:31 AM PST
by
68 grunt
(3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
To: Pinetop
the issue of whether the Florida statutory scheme that allows the removal of the intubation is constitutional since it does not provide any guidelines to the Court in application of the statute.Hmm, wonder why this came up? And who brought that to the attention of the court?
18
posted on
03/24/2005 11:40:40 AM PST
by
agrace
To: AliVeritas
19
posted on
03/24/2005 11:46:13 AM PST
by
finnman69
(cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
To: doc30
My understanding is that he's a Clinton hack, though, despite the R. Clinton wasn't known to support or consort with very many true conservatives. I may be wrong about this, though.
Jim Jeffords had an R next to his name, too.
20
posted on
03/24/2005 11:47:42 AM PST
by
Ghost of Philip Marlowe
(Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 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