I fucking give up. You evidently want a country where the far right fanatics, attention whoring hypocrites and various heretics selling their own mutations and distortions of religion can rule by decree, with the full backing of a puppet court. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
An Iowa legislator (conservative Republican Steve King) was on NPR last week, talking about cutting funding to the judiciary, as a way to stop activist judges. Scary.
You really are an idiot, aren’t you.
Rather than just trotting out the tired old shit about “activist” judges, could you perhaps explain in what sense any of the, what, 20-odd decisions are “activist” in your opinion? I was under the impression that this term referred to inventing implications of the law out of whole cloth, rather than the rather more mundane matter of securing expert testimony, finding fact and applying said facts to the law as it is written. “Activist” is not synonymous with “disagrees with FriarTed”, nor even with the President. Sorry.
No, I’m afraid the problem you have is that you just disagree with every single court appointed expert. Oh, and you don’t seem to care about Terri’s own wishes, or (again) don’t believe the several witnesses who testified about those wishes. Neither of these is a problem with the judiciary.
Why does Tom Delay hate America so much?
My kind of people! 
You know you just included Alan Dershowitz, Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson & 47 House Democrats in that group (and I’ll say I was surprised at the three named & that many Dem Congressfolk on our side)
Anyone who thinks the judiciary- any judiciary, left or right- should rule unchecked by Executive, Legislature or the Citizenry either doesn’t really know or doesn’t really care about Constitutional Government. The Constitution does allow Congress to check the Judiciary. And if it didn’t (tho it does), it would need to be amended so that it did.
The Judiciary in the Terri Schaivo case has been anything but “activist”. A hearing was held to determine what Terri’s wishes would have been given the lack of an advance directive. A decision was reached that based on the testimony of witnesses from both sides, that Terri would not have wanted to live in a PVS. This decision was subsequently reviewed and the reasoning behind it examined by dozens of other judges. The decision was shown to be accurate and the reasoning sound. Thus, in accordance with the credibly identified wishes of Terri, support was withdrawn.
The only negative aspect of the Judiciary which has come to light in this case is that they are so fucking slow in reaching an authoritive decision. I’ve got mixed feelings about this because I generally think the appeals process and ability to question the decisions is critical, but at some point enough is enough. Ten years or so worth of legal battles in nearly two dozen courts in both state and federal jurisdictions on a case is too much IMHO.
Enjoy,
Steven
Exactly. The Constitution specifices an intricate system of checks and checks.
So fucking what. Democrats can be hypocrites and whores too. Are you another party hack who doesn’t care about anything except that your “gang” wins every turf war? I’m a Democrat (right now). I can turn against them any time I choose, and join some other party. If your party is more important than the country as a whole, or doing what is right, then you can say so right now, in the open, and I won’t waste any more time on you.
The first part has been adressed so often here it’s practically a sing-song nursery rhyme: Terri had no brain. Terri couldn’t feel pain. Morphine is given to ALL those with feeding tubes removed, as much to assuage the family’s worries as any actual painkilling issues.
As for the second part, would it have been better for her, having been granted by the court the option to die, to have a single massive dose of opiates for a quick exit? If so, blame the right-to-life crowd who insist it’s only a slippery slope away to offing Grandma who developed a mild cough this morning; so therefore we aren’t allowed to do for our loved ones what anyone with half a heart will do for a dying pet.
We have a right to die when our time comes. It follows that there must be a method of doing so. If there is no legal way to allow someone to die, then that right is rendered moot, isn’t it?
Bolding mine.
You do realise, i assume, that—depending on which poll you look at—anywhere between 60 and 80 per cent of the American citizenry disagreed with Congress’s intervention in this case?
Eminently understandable, however, when a life is on the line, it’s also understandable why one would want to err on the side of caution.
Ted Kennedy—bless his little cotton socks!—came through:
And that the Judge in this particular case was reelected last year after being challenged on this very issue?
I agree, and that is the source of my mixed feelings. I would be hard pressed to consider ten years and nearly two dozen judges as a reasonable standard of “caution”. The three appeals automatically given to convicts in death penalty cases seems far more reasonable. The conclusion of the trial judge, then being double, triple, and quadrouple checked(since a life is on the line), seems to be a fair standard for caution. 19+ checks? Especially when the verdict is unanimous and has been since the beginning? Excessive IMHO.
Enjoy,
Steven
Erring on the side of caution, sanctity of life, all these are just political tools right now, rallying cries for the weak and gullible. Ways to grab more power.
There were enough years, and enough court fights (reviews) to assure that caution had been exercised, for a long long time. Over the years, the case had been reviewed by 19 judges in Florida.
If the caution argument had been originally put forth by individuals who had been known for caution, I would accept their reasoning. However, when the president said it, it rang very hollow. As governor, he presided over 152 executions, some of which had reasonable doubt, more executions than ALL the other states combined. He reviewed each case for maybe 15 minutes, saying he trusted the courts (because it suited him to do so). He only trusts the courts when they do what he wants. In one case, he had the nerve, the gall, to make public jokes about the execution. He signed a bill (google Sun Hudson some time) allowing the bean counters and accountants to decide when the plug should be pulled, despite the wishes of the parents - money trumps life. There are people who need organ tranplants - they won’t get them because Bush wants to cut Medicaid. So, where is the erring on the side of caution, the erring on the side of life. All I see is greed, ambition, hypocrisy and outright bald face lying from these people. Now that it looks like The People are against all of this and think the congress and president seriously overstepped their bounds, some of them are backing away. The rest are trying to use it to do even more damage, like this was just a stepping stone.
Like you said in the other thread, I too want some honesty, some accountability, and some answers.
Even though I support the decisions made by the many court systems over the years in this case, it is irrelevant, I think, what percentage of the people support their decisions.
And it is equally irrelevant that Dershowitz, Nader, Jackson, and 47 House Democrats, not to mention the Senate, disagree.
What is relevent is whether Terri Schiavo’s Constitutional rights were protected and whether or the judiciary acting according to the Constitution.
Considering Tom Delay’s comments, it is particularly relevant as to whether or not the federal judiciary acted according to the Constitution.
The Legislative Branch, if I understand correctly, can exercise control over federal courts in two ways – by approving or failing to approve nominations to federal courts and by impeaching those federal judges who fail to uphold the Constitution.
On what Constitution grounds is Delay claiming that the federal judiciary is out of control?
(Do you have a link to Dershowitz’s comments on the case? I’m not “demanding” a cite. I just find his insites interesting.)
FriarTed, if it is any comfort to you, a relatively young doctor that my daughter knew socially and that I met briefly said that if he was ever in unendurable pain for which he could find no relief, he would would refuse nourishment because that part is comparatively painless. I do not know if he had planned to also reject hydration. (He is now deceased. The cause of death was cancer.)
Then you should start with some information. Your summary of the Texas Futile Care law was inaccurate. I summarized it here and there was other discussion including the actual statute verbaitm from the Texas code posted in the thread a few posts above mine. The decision is not made by bean counters and accountants. It doesn’t mention financial resources at all and is as applicable to those who can pay as those who can’t.
The fight against ignorance starts at home. You won’t get answers from anyone if you preface your questions with an unfair and inaccurate accusation.
Enjoy,
Steven
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/03/schiavo_hudson_and_nikolouzos.php
Terry and Sun and Spiro are similar, in that the outlook was grim. They are also similar in that IT ALL REVOLVES AROUND MONEY.
Hey, if you’re going to read blogger’s summaries of news articles about the case instead of the actual law then you will remain without a leg to stand on in a resonable debate.
Enjoy,
Steven