Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SolomoninSouthDakota
Perhaps I am. But I don't see what he can do here when the entire judiciary from top to bottom is just giving him the middle finger, without starting an armed conflict in Florida. Somebody has to make a decision to resolve any kind of dispute in our society, and we have given that power to the judiciary (unwisely at this point in time.) But the judiciary decide how disputes will end without armed conflict between the different factions of our society. If people do not follow the decisions of judges, then we surely will end up in numerous armed conflicts and literally firefights between various groups.

And that is exactly where this would have gone if Jeb had moved in with his state police into that hospice defended by local police. It would have ended in an armed conflict and possible shootout between two police forces. Now you may say "well that's fine because it's the right thing to do and we have to fight for Terri." That may actually be true in this one case, but what kind of precedent does that set for the future? Do you want a DemocRAT President thumbing his nose at the Supreme Court and sending troops in to enforce his will on society? Jeb was looking through the present crisis into the future and I think he made the right decision here. To survive politically, he has to explain all this to the people and then take Greer down hard.

201 posted on 03/25/2005 8:41:50 PM PST by carl in alaska (Blog blog bloggin' on heaven's door.....Kerry's speeches are just one big snore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]


To: carl in alaska

You may be right about backing off at the time. But for many conservatives, he came off terribly foolish and cowardly looking; I doubt he'll do anything in the future politically.


233 posted on 03/25/2005 8:47:21 PM PST by SolomoninSouthDakota (Daschle is gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies ]

To: carl in alaska
"That may actually be true in this one case, but what kind of precedent does that set for the future?"

Perhaps one that lets the judiciary know in no uncertain terms that the people have had enough of their tyranny and are not going to take it any more. I'm not saying that I'm in favor of violent conflict, but if we back up and redraw our line in the sand every time they impose their will upon us instead of defending the one already drawn, proving time and time again that we are never actually going to stand up and fight them no matter how outrageous their demands become, then what makes you think they will avoid pressing even furthur? What is their deterrent?

That's about as useful as putting an out of control child in "time out" and threatening to spank his butt, when he knows good and well you're never going to do it. A spanking may not be the first, or preferred, line of defense in dealing with unruly children, but it certainly needs to be a tool in the arsenal and they need to know that sometimes it will be used. Once their attention is recaptured, they will become more receptive to less drastic measures, but as long as their escalating tantrums are being rewarded they will remain in control.

We seem to keep forgetting that our freedom was purchased with blood, not words.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots." (Thomas Jefferson)

1,422 posted on 03/26/2005 12:27:33 PM PST by sweetliberty (Somebody please pull the death brigade's feeding tube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson