Replies

I am decent. And contrary to the belief of some, I didn't want the woman to die. My only problem with any of this is the involvement of the national government in a state issue. I wish Greer would have decided differently. I really do. I would have hoped against hope that Schiavo's situation could be somehow reversed. Medical opinions aside, I'm not going to get into it as I readily admit I am not knowledgeable enough about medicine to offer an opinion.

But when people start mucking about with what's left of the Republic to forward an agenda (which looks altruistic on its face) that eventually would destroy any hopes of federalism or the separation of powers being retained, that's when I have the problem

I give you considerable credit for hanging in so long on this thread and make it clear I do not categorize you with the real and amateurish disruptors who made halting attempts to sidle up to you.

I respect your knowledge of the Constitution and your concerns about mucking about any more with what is the remnant of our intended government.

Where we may part ways is on separation of powers. Please bear with me, because I do not have the facility or knowledge you profess. As I understand it, the Supreme Court and its structure are established to interpret the Constitution, period. If something new is to change, it comes from the Congress, i.e. we-the-people. Hence an amendment. If the rule of law were within those guidelines, I would be happy. That would leave the people of the country with the final say and the judges as interpreters, not our rulers.

Well, that didn't happen here. A petty Judge trumped a Governor. Right or wrong, he claimed the final word. That puts the Governer with his we-the-people a notch below. Hence, the balance is gone. The Judge rules the roost. I am not just saying something hypothetical. It happened in front of our horrified eyes!

The Court system carried his faulty analysis higher and did no further investigation, simply ratified his decision. It went up the ladder to the Supremes and they took his side as well, we-the-people be damned. Congress be damned, Executive be damned. The Supremes rule. No just interpreting the law for them, no, they invent the law.

It should not have been necessary and could have been the bad thing that galls you, that the Executive and Congress interfered. Whether correct or not, that was an ineffective attempt to restore some semblence of balance already usurped by the Judiciary. We-the-people blinked, and the Supremes stood fast as if our rulers.

That is what is out of whack and oozed out of Pinellas Park and Clearwater. King Greer.

That Judge is the one who mucked about with what is left of our Republic and his cronies backed him without blinking. I am no repository for the volumes of facts on this case but inquiring minds, especially inquisitive ones such as yours would find a mountain of evidence establishing that is what happened. Some of us here could weigh down a truck with the documents and hard facts. The only way you would not is if you predetermined the outcome to be comfortable to yourself.

Many of us were on the scene as witnesses, and saw the atrocity up close and saw what was happening with this judge. Ask and you shall find.

If you can explain to me that a tinpot judge is entitled to such power as I described, I will be glad to hear.

8mm

Okay, I see your point. However, don't we as citizens call upon the government (starting with the local police)to address a wrong? There were enough people in government to be concerned about what was transpiring, and they did try to stop Terri from being killed.

I too am angry about the Federal government munching away at state sovereignty. Look at the blackmail we all have to put up with, to get our own money back. Highway funds? Mandatory 55 mph on all freeways? Brain buckets for bikers? No child left behind, and also abortion. If this was not such a dire situation, I'd probably feel the same way as you and others do. Let's face it, the fox has been in the henhouse for decades.