Posted on 03/23/2005 7:40:30 AM PST by topher
I posted under "Constitution" because of the issues there as well as under "Government" and "Florida".
Admin Moderator can remove from topics if appropriate.
For those who are getting so emotional over Terri Schiavo, please allow for a good, informed discussion on this.
I think the author makes some good points that should be aired...
Interesting article. Thanks.
I presume that means we both think.
Interesting. It also leaves me breathless that the federal judge ignored the law Congress passed to do a de novo review, although I think judges can always decide whether or not to take a case. At this point I am hoping for a Roe v Wade decision from the Supremes that gets the government out of this entirely and rules that end of live decisions should be between a patient, his family, and his doc. No lawsuits.
The only time in our history (AFAIK) that a President actually took action against to oppose a judgment of the Supreme Court was when Clinton perjured and manipulated the Paula Jones case after a unanimous Supreme Court said "respondent has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims"
He was rightly impeached.
the judiciary has set its face against what the society, the people, the legislature, and the Governor believe is constitutional right.
G.Mason says:
And I think the author believes we have a democracy and are not a representative republic.
I strongly disagree. In the statement above, the elected representatives have voiced strong differences with the Judicial Branch. So have the people, but they only have say through their representatives.
We are supposed to be a government of We the People.
The representatives of the people (legislative and executive branches) have a responsibility to protect the people if the Judiciary is not abiding by the laws.
In this case, Judge Greer is acting as Guardian ab Litem as well as the fact the US Congress allowed the parents to have a new trial de novo.
Judiciary prudence dictates that the representatives of the people protect the rights of the people and enforce the laws.
So I just disagree that this is getting into a Democracy. If someone was lynching people in Tampa under Bishop Lynch [pun intended], then the Governor has the right to stop that, even if the courts consider that a good exercise of religious freedom.
I don't think you are right. Where in the piece does he convey that impression?
The piece argues for the executive to be co-equal with the judiciary rather than subservient to it. The executive is, typically (depending on the state) elected by the people directly (but in some cases may not be). The executive of the nation is actually elected by the filtered votes of the people in the two-part process. None of this implies "democracy and not a representative republic". But, rather, both.
He is not arguing for all decisions to be made via popular referenda.
At the US Supreme Court, where the Roe v Wade decision is stored, they are always finding it turned upside down on the bookself [overturning Roe v Wade symbolically].
Associates of Supreme Court Justice are being blamed for this...
I might add that it is high time that people in positions of authority, when given orders such as this by the courts, have a Moral Obligation to IGNORE THOSE ORDERS!
"I was just following orders" was not a defense in Nuremburg and it is no defense now.
The Police officers who are standing armed guard outside that hospital to prevent people from trying to feed her manually. The doctors and nurses who stood by and did NOTHING while that tube was removed, or actively participated in that procedure are just as guilty as Greer, Michael and Felos in this woman's murder.
People, keep in mind you have ZERO obligation to follow an illegal command from anyone in any position of authority. Murder by starvation IS an illegal order. Period.
" Right now, Terri Schindler-Schiavo is being deliberately starved. Thus, the Florida executive, Jeb Bush, is bound by his oath to act now in accordance with his conscientious understanding of what the Constitution and the laws of Florida require, because the judge in the case has no executive power."
I don't see the governor storming the hospice walls.
Do you think he is acting "in accordance with his conscientious understanding of what the Constitution and the laws of Florida require"?
Will you lead us to storm those gates of Hell?
Will you lead us to storm those gates of Hell?
If necessary yes
Did you ever consider that Jeb has his own team of advisers who may have more formidable credentials than yours?
I may be wrong, but if the governor knows of problems that require marshall law declared and the Natioanl Guard to go in or the State Police, he has the authority and must act.
I am not sure why the Governor or the President do not intervene to protect an innocent life from an erratic judge [at least my opinion].
The executive branch has an obligation. Sort of like a policeman standing by and watching a young lady being gunned down in front of his eyes and doing nothing...
I just sent the following email to Governor Bush:
Dear Governor Bush:
Sir, it is my belief that as "Chief Magistrate" of the State of Florida, you have the moral/Biblical authority to act in an extraordinary fashion, outside of what is currently thought to be your powers, to rescue the life of Terri Schiavo.
The Judical Branch of Government has become too detached from reality and is out of control. They no longer practice the "Rule of Law" but instead the "Rule of Lawyers." Here you not only have a moral obligation under God to act, but a constitutional one to restore balance to the three branches. Extreme circumstances call for extreme action.
You will, of course, be lambasted and vilified for doing this, but you will be right in the eyes of God. I think that matters to you. I also think that in time, after the dust settles and the facts fully reported, you will eventually have the gratitude of your countrymen.
I am therefore pleading with you to use Executive Power and order law enforcement personnel under your control to take Terri Schiavo into protective custody, to sustain her life, in defiance of the courts. I know this is a difficult thing to do, but I think you are up to it.
With respect and prayers to sustain you,
Name withheld(here)
Midwest City, OK
P.S. I also think you should call upon the President of the United States to also exercise extraordinary executive power. The Judiciary has ignored the intent of the Congress of the United States and President. This must end.
" ... an assault that continues, in this case, in contravention of the will of the people as expressed in Florida in the state legislature, by the governor, now by the Congress of the United States."
What has the Florida legislature expressed in this case?
The family from both sides went to the judiciary to interpret the laws and the laws were interpreted accordingly. It is unfortunate that the side that disagrees with the rulings they sought, is not willing to accept the decisions because it wasn't ruled in their favor.
So now they blame the judicial system who are just doing their job of interpreting the laws as written.
It is unfortunate that society thinks they have to take issues all the way to the Supreme Courts and still cannot accept the laws of the land.
It is not the job of the judiciary to appease people with agendas, but in some recent cases it appears that indeed is the case. But does that make the judiciary corrupt as a whole? I don't believe so. However it is easy to point out a handful of rulings from various Circuits and assume the entire process is corrupt. This court has ruled on individual rights as opposed to states rights. And generally the court will always favor the individual right and not the right of the collective. Agree or disagree, someone will always be upset with a ruling and that is the way it always will be.
The pressure placed upon the Judiciary has to be immense and I wouldn't want the job. The Judiciary is not a popularity contest.
You are overlooking Andrew Jackson's actions in opposition to the ruling of the Supreme Court with regard to the Indian removal from Northern Georgia.
You have a bad link here.
But my question is if the state judge is acting improperly [according to some reports, by being the Guardian ab Litem and the Judge of report, this violates Florida law].
The other really odd thing about this case is the Judge is blind, so taking on two roles is really not in the interest of the person he is concerned [Justice is blind takes on a new meaning with Judge George Greer].
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.