Very well. let’s talk about the 152 executions and the tasteless mocking and mimicking of one of the “executees” then.
No thanks. I’m anti-death penalty already and my criticism of your inaccurate summary of the Texas Futile Care law does not imply support for anything else Bush did while he was Texas Governor, President, or part owner of the Texas Rangers. I’ve never liked the guy. Not when he was my Governor, nor now that he’s my President. I didn’t think much of him as a part owner of the Rangers either, but that was tolerable.
Enjoy,
Steven
Oh, I agree with Tom DeLay. The federal judiciary is activist and bad for America. Has been since the Supreme Court did so much to help Dubya engineer that stolen election back in 2000, with that “extraordinary” “one-time” decision of theirs. But I don’t think they’re out of control. I think they’re totally in Republican control. Right now, the use the Pubbies have for them is “whipping boy.”
What? SteveG1 was talking about attempts by a political group - the ultraconservative wing of the Republican party, to be precise - to control the judiciary. None of these people you mention are members of that political group. In fact, Jesse Jackson and Ralph Nader are among the most prominent leftist political figures in the United States today.
And anyone who things that checks and balances should occur in the form of Congress having the power to punish judges for “wrong” decisions - i.e. ones contrary to party principles - is in fact supporting a one-party dictatorship. Do you really think that those in prominent positions in the Republican party are so morally pure that they can be trusted with this power?
Nothing in this case even remotely approached “judicial activism”. The word has essentially become a codeword to describe judicial action not toeing the party line - which is a frightening indictment of the inability of the left to frame the debate - but there is absolutely nothing about these decisions that even approaches the idea of judges making laws. Permitting one’s next of kin to make medical decisions on their behalf is the norm, and the findings-of-fact in the case reflect the importance to the case of Terry Schiavo’s own wishes. I disagree with your belief that Terry’s own wishes regarding her medical care are less important than those of prominent politicians - in fact, I support the idea of a government that has less power to intrude into our most personal choices, not more. Regardless, though, there was an already-extant system to manage the care of those who are unable to communicate, and upholding that system is the precise opposite of “activism”.
I understand your conviction in the leadership of the Republican party. Perhaps I skew partisan myself; I have found myself thinking on more than one occasion that if my people ruled the world, we could put an end to all these difficulties. 
Nevertheless, history has shown that excessive or zealous faith in governmental leaders permits them to destroy the liberties of their citizens. It is an unhealthy impulse to forget that your own side isn’t perfect.
Fair enough
In the Sun Hudson case, it wasn’t about money, per se. It was the fact that the boy’s condition was extremely painful, so keeping him alive on life support was cruel, AND his own mother was judged mentally incompetant.
That part was left out of the things I read. I have to assume they were left out deliberately, and I’ve been had. After all, that would have a major gigantic impact, and I would have to agree with the final decisions that were made.
Was that the one where the mother was convinced she was in psychic connection with her son, and that he was some sort of messianic figure?
Yes.
As I was scrolling down I glanced at this and some of the words mashed together. I found myself wondering why Eve was blessing Ted Kennedy’s little cocks. This in turn led to even more wondering and now I have to end this hijack to go throw up.
That’s another “tidbit” that was left out of the accounts I read. I guess I can’t read anything these days, without wondering what the author embellished or deliberately omitted.
They’re called elections. Happens every four years, second Tuesday in November, like clockwork.
Well, sure, if they actually tried to tried to eliminate the Constitution, they would become The Enemy, but they haven’t.
Are there monsters under your bed? Is the boogey-man lurking in your closet? :rolleyes:
No, but there’s one scary mo-fo lurking around my House.
Well, it looks like there might be some fallout for DeLay because of this.
And this part
Indicates he might have just eroded the support of his core voting block. Not a good thing for him.
Bumping this thread because of a quote a co-worker showed me…:
That pesky right to privacy. :rolleyes:
When you see “privacy”, read “abortion”.
Since many of the original framers were still around when Marbury v. Madison was decided in 1803 and the fact that they didn’t revolt, suggests to me that they accepted that decision as their intent.
Well, that WOULD explain getting rid of the sodomy law in Texas then.
How dare you drag facts into this discussion, sir!