Replies

It isn't to be an 'activist' to go back to fundamental law, such as is found in the Fifth Amendment and in Article One, Section Two of the FL Constitution, and to rule accordingly.

No judge has discretion to violate the fundamental right to life of our citizens.

This particular GOP CYA talking point is a dog that just ain't gonna hunt...at least with those who reference fundamental human rights as their political and legal compass. God help those who are naive enough to be taken in by this argument, and may God restrain those who know better but use it anyway in the name of partisanship.

You are as rabidly anti-GOP as the most mouth-breathing Deaniac at Democratic Underground, and I give your rants about as much attention as I do theirs.

That is, good for a laugh, but not much else.

The judge relied on past Florida precedent by the Florida Supreme Court under another case. Article I, Section 2 of the FL Constitution nor the Fifth Amendment came under scrutiny in the past case either. It simply did not apply in this case. Do you honestly believe that court after court somehow missed this? Do you have some sort of understanding of the Constitution that no one else has?

This particular GOP CYA talking point is a dog that just ain't gonna hunt...at least with those who reference fundamental human rights as their political and legal compass.

Well I'm not GOP so I don't care what 'talking points' they choose to use or not. The only things that guide me are a strong belief in Christ, fundamental human rights, and the limitations as outlined in the Constitution of these United States. Congress had no right nor position to involve themselves in a simple guardianship case. Justice Scalia in the Cruzan decision was clear and Madison was even clearer in Federalist #45