Posted on 05/09/2005 5:36:58 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Are you nuts?
This truth cuts to the crux of the matter, power is seductive and judges are no more trustworthy than any other government employee. The original Marbury vs. Madison was a carefully crafted power grab and the Executive and Congress should have recognized it at the time and corrected the usurpation rather than allowing precedent.
He is such a shallow freakin' hypocrite.
By definition, since I'm a woman, yes.
Yep. As much as it pains me to admit it, all of these judges did indeed aid and abet the murder of Terri Schiavo, while at the same time the Republican governor of Florida held up his palms and said there was nothing he could do - - he was powerless against a county probate judge.
It's one thing for Jeb Bush to throw away any political future he may have had, but it's another thing altogether when Republican-appointed judges laugh in our faces. That brutal murder, watched by the entire world for two excruciating weeks, was the most disappointing and disgraceful government fiasco I have ever been. And I can't even blame the scumbag Democrats.
Be honest, now.
How many women do you know who at one time you judged sensible, but then you found out they "just think Elian's better off back with his father"?
Or who "would never have an abortion but I want to be sure the feds keep their laws off my body"?
Or who "don't know about all that tax stuff, but they'd better not mess with my Social Security, and oh by the way ATM fees are way too high"?
Do you think it was right or wrong to kill Terri Schindler?
Assuming you're not being sarcastic, you are far too hard on women. Many males exhibit the same type of stupidity.
That's the problem with much of the FReeper analysis too.
bttt
What wasn't in dispute is the law and how it should be interpreted in a neutral fashion at an appellate level.
The problem most would have here is that if the Republicans nominated strict Constitutionalist judges (as they well should), the judges would still be blamed. Republicans and 'conservatives' don't want Constitutionally based rulings, they want rulings in their favor.
Eloquent sentiments, indeed!
It's not beside the point when you look at Greer, who is a Republican. If you're saying he ruled according to the law and that that was the right thing to do, you are also saying it was right to kill Terri Schindler.
I don't know if he made the right rulings or not. They don't seem right to me, but all I have to go on in judging that is someone's spin. Nobody wants to talk facts in this case. Just spin.
I don't want to be lumped into that crowd, but these threads have proven your point to be generally correct.
The problem with Farah's analysis is that it is conclusory. It is void of analytical content. It discusses only the outcome of the case and the political affiliation of the presidents who nominated the involved judges.
The article contains no discussion of the relative merits of the majority and minority opinions. It does not discuss the hurdles involved in reversing a trial court's finding. It does not probe the question of whether or not civil procedure is equipped to handle "tough cases" (e.g., should there be additional procedural safeguards? If so, when?).
There are certainly arguments on both sides of "legislated from the bench." No analyses beyond the opinions themselves, again, other than conclusory or politically motivated ones, have been brought forth as to whether or not the Palm Sunday legislation was constitutional. If it was, there is a question of whether or not the process used by the Federal Court System adhered to legislative intent. One can see pieces of both sides of this argument in the opinions of the courts. Additional argument and analysis will no doubt be offered in time, as the legal scholars dissect the case. Some will side with the dissent, and find that the courts did practice judical activism, by subverting legislative intent. No doubt, that side lost the case, but it's possible to identify a number of cases where the majority got it wrong, given the benefit of hindsight.
Actually, the Constitution applies to all Americans, even disabled Americans. Killing people because they are disabled is not only illegal and unconstitutional. It's also wrong.
Oh, I don't know. Checks and balances means that EVERY branch will overreach from time to time. Marshall decided that the power the plaintiff was asking the court to exercise, was a power the court did not have under the Constitution, even if the legislature tried to give that power to the court.
The long term problem that I see is the unwillingness of Congress to exercise its constitutionally granted power of impeachment to shitcan judges that make public policy, or subvert the will of the people as expressed in statutes. At some point the fancy word-play of lawyers and judges needs to be brought back to earth. That ain't happening.
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.