US Senate to convene emergency session. (Schiavo) Fox news. Tom Delay speaking now

Fox News

[Ravi]

Just heard on Fox that U.S. Senate will convene today in emergency session regarding Terri Schiavo.

[Mrs.Nooseman]

Sir,with all due respect, I was not attacking you, nor was I disagreeing with you!

If you read my post carefully you would have seen that I was in agreement with you.

The rest of my rant has to do with you replying To a poster with stupid ,who was only agreeing with post # 3!

You didn't answer why you didn't respond to the original post!

I never attacked you on anything or called you any form of
names or referring to your comprehension and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from it as well.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

You didn't answer why you didn't respond to the original post!

I read thousands of posts I do not respond to. Many times I read several that make no sense whatever ( I am amazed at the lack of political knowledge in this country and even, sad to say, on this board) and after awhile I just snap. Your friend was my snapping point.

I fail to see what the problem is with which poster I reply to, be it the first who makes the error or the second or third who agree with the error. I truly try to ignore errors as it often causes me to have to type repeated explanations to folks like you and your friend.

I shall at this point just give up and admit that the 14 Congressmen left in Washington on Saturday morning (ESTIMATE NO LINK AVAILABLE) should have gathered in the House so as to prevent me having to explain myself over and over. I assure you I will tear Tom DeLays rear up on Wed. the 30 when I next see him.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

Thanks be to the Lord, Terri won this one.

[purpleland]

The school choice argument is just as on point as the Terri example.

**The example you made of parental-rights to school choice in no way relates logically nor legally to the Terri Schiavo case. Your example is a rickity fruit basket - apples and oranges.

Executive orders are issued with regard to government agencies, ceremonial issues or defense issues. They don't relate to individual people and cannot be in conflict with decisions of the judicial branch.

**The judicial branch (the supreme court) is not elected. It's a lifetime thru senility sinecure; it's an autonamous opinate. However, the court is not quite a dictatorship and certainly it's not composed of infallible Gods.

Again if you want the chief executive to be able to decree whatever strikes his fancy

**You soar with presumptuous fancy by misrepresenting what I "want"! And, your motive in doing so? Sophomoric zeal?

then I suggest again that you move to China as you appear more comfortable with government having the ability to dictate all facets of your life.

*You're projecting. Your "fancy" is overly fallacious.

In short, the reason the executive order issue hasn't been raised anyplace other than here, by you, is because it is not an option.

*Presidents (and governors) can issue executive orders for clemency and stays of execution. Legislature and judiciary do not have those prerogatives.

**Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government
27. The Art of Governing

The Chief Executive of a republic is expected to govern in the public interest and not for his own enrichment or that of his family and friends. The art of governing consists simply of being honest, exercising common sense, following principle, and doing what is right and just.

"It behooves [a chief executive] to think and to act for [himself] and for [his] people. The great principles of right and wrong are legible to every reader; to pursue them requires not the aid of many counselors. The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. [He need] only aim to do [his] duty, and mankind will give [him] credit where [he fails]." --Thomas Jefferson

[OneTimeLurker]

"*Presidents (and governors) can issue executive orders for clemency and stays of execution. Legislature and judiciary do not have those prerogatives. "

This is the only part of your last post that ads anything new. Your are right about this, but so what. The reason Governors and Presidents are permitted to do this is BECAUSE THEY ARE EXPLICITLY PERMITTED TO DO THIS IN LAW.

Worth repeating again is that executive orders cannot be in conflict with decisions of the judicial branch. This is fact, not my opinion....your rant about Judges not being infallible gods is opinion and has no bearing on the outcome.

The only way anything close to approximating what you want to happen can happen would be if Congress passed a law saying that the President had that power.

[Smartaleck]

"She isn't BRAIN DEAD unless someone produces an MRI - AND clinical observations by several expert neurologists over a period of weeks."

There have been no less than 5 doctors including two selected by the parents as well as some 8 radiologists and physical therapist who have looked at her. She has had a CT-Scan, recommended for use upon those thought to be in a PVS. http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#timeline

You are either very ignorant to make such a statement or have your own agenda me thinks.

[Conservative Goddess]

Excellent Question!

If any of us deny food and water to our pets, we're guilty of animal cruelty....but it's not cruel to deny Terri food and water? Gimme a break.

[Smartaleck]

"I don't understand why others cannot sense this.I really don't. That is what I see."

There's been a lot of discussion over the recent years about "when is a person dead?"

Some look at the subject objectively others emotionally. Both have merits.

Seems like the consensus is, when the cerebral cortex ceases to function, that part of the brain that makes us human, as opposed to the lower brain stem which controls out auto response system (blinking, heart beat, breathing etc.) a person is dead in any meaningful sense of the word.

A CT-scan of Terri, the preferred method for those who might be in a PVS, indicates her cortex has turned to a "liquid", i.e. useless and is noted in the court documents as part of a series of evaluations and diagnosis of her condition.

Some dispute this and there's been a lot of mis-information put out regarding the "differences" of opinion which looks to be mostly based on speculation rather than sound reasoning IMO.

Conversely, the court, judge Greer, has sided with the consensus of noted medical expert opinions that she's dead in a clinical sense and not likely to have any type of recovery. His opinions have been held up by other courts so he's not alone nor acting in a capricious arbitrary manner... speculation and rumor to the contrary.
One Freeper went so far as to post "Terri is not dying". Shoot everybody is dying. Now it's about denial and recognition of reality.

[Smartaleck]

"Where are all of the feminists who preach about women's rights? Now they are silent while her bigamist husband has the say over Terri!"

"Glad to see someone else with that angle. Terri's husband in addition is perferming the ultimate act of wife abuse,"

When a soldier is MIA, when is it acceptable to presume them dead and the spouse should be safe going on with their own life? Never?

[Smartaleck]

"Excellent Question!"
"If any of us deny food and water to our pets, we're guilty of animal cruelty...."

Were said animal brains starved of oxygen for a period of time?

[exDem from Miami]

The chief expert the husband used, and regarded as the pre-eminent expert by J. Greer, saw her for a grand total of 45 minutes. That's an exam?

CT scan is low resolution and useful in emergency situations, but defintely NOT definitive.

What's your agenda, Smartaleck?

[purpleland]

"*Presidents (and governors) can issue executive orders for clemency and stays of execution. Legislature and judiciary do not have those prerogatives. "

This is the only part of your last post that ads anything new. Your are right about this, but so what. The reason Governors and Presidents are permitted to do this is BECAUSE THEY ARE EXPLICITLY PERMITTED TO DO THIS IN LAW.

**Therefore, the president may issue an executive order for a "stay of execution" by starvation re Terri Schiavo.

Worth repeating again is that executive orders cannot be in conflict with decisions of the judicial branch. This is fact, not my opinion....your rant about Judges not being infallible gods is opinion and has no bearing on the outcome.

**It bears repeating that you characterize my expressed opinions as "rants." Furthermore, you misrepresent, in fact, YOU INVENT what YOU deem I "want" when I have expressed no such thing! I am very explicit in expressing what I want and what I think. I don't respect your cross-eyed interpretion and misrepresentation in your contentious discourse.

**Judges, presidents, politicians, judges, et al, are NOT infallible gods, and GOVERNMENT is not an infallible entity. THAT (my)statement is proven over-well by the history and the nature of mankind. Supreme Court judges, for the most part, are political appointees. We the People are not to be governed by a cabal of judges nor should the Constitution ever be over-ruled by judges. To that point: Should the singular issue of abortion rights (i.e., partial birth butchery) be the litmus test for SC appointees? Ridiculous! You may quote me, not misrepresent me, and by quoting me you redeem the integrity you lost through asserting devious and fanciful concoctions of what "things" I "want."

[purpleland]

"*Presidents (and governors) can issue executive orders for clemency and stays of execution. Legislature and judiciary do not have those prerogatives. "

This is the only part of your last post that ads anything new. Your are right about this, but so what. The reason Governors and Presidents are permitted to do this is BECAUSE THEY ARE EXPLICITLY PERMITTED TO DO THIS IN LAW.

**Therefore, the president may issue an executive order for a "stay of execution" by starvation re Terri Schiavo.

Worth repeating again is that executive orders cannot be in conflict with decisions of the judicial branch. This is fact, not my opinion....your rant about Judges not being infallible gods is opinion and has no bearing on the outcome.

**It bears repeating that you characterize my expressed opinions as "rants." Furthermore, you misrepresent, in fact, YOU INVENT what YOU deem I "want" when I have expressed no such thing! I am very explicit in expressing what I want and what I think. I don't respect your cross-eyed interpretion and misrepresentation in your contentious discourse.

**Judges, presidents, politicians, judges, et al, are NOT infallible gods, and GOVERNMENT is not an infallible entity. THAT (my)statement is proven over-well by the history and the nature of mankind. Supreme Court judges, for the most part, are political appointees. We the People are not to be governed by a cabal of judges nor should the Constitution ever be over-ruled by judges. To that point: Should the singular issue of abortion rights (i.e., partial birth butchery) be the litmus test for SC appointees? Ridiculous! You may quote me, not misrepresent me, and by quoting me you redeem the integrity you lost through asserting devious and fanciful concoctions of what "things" I "want."

[purpleland]

"It's definitely "hearsay," but I appreciate the effort."

The final out: Heresay and hearsay sound the same.
Who's to know? %)

[OneTimeLurker]

"**Therefore, the president may issue an executive order for a "stay of execution" by starvation re Terri Schiavo."

Forgot to mention that even assuming you call this an execution (which by legal definition it is not), the President has no power to stay an execution done under a State's jurisdiction. The President only has power over federal prisoners, for example. To the extent you want to call this an execution (which it may be in fact (I don't pretend to know) but not in law), your grievance would be with Jeb Bush.

[Cultural Jihad]

You and I are on the same side of this issue...how about that.

You'll survive. ;-)

Seriously I derived my position by following the same principles I use when the discussion is illegal aliens: Human laws are designed for people and for the upholding of their unalienable rights, not the other way around.

[purpleland]

"**Therefore, the president may issue an executive order for a "stay of execution" by starvation re Terri Schiavo."

Forgot to mention that even assuming you call this an execution (which by legal definition it is not),

**BUT, in effect, it is "an execution." You may assume...

the President has no power to stay an execution done under a State's jurisdiction. The President only has power over federal prisoners, for example. To the extent you want to call this an execution (which it may be in fact

**"...in fact..." and in effect, I call this action against sustaining Terri's life an execution by starvation.

(I don't pretend to know) but not in law), your grievance would be with Jeb Bush.

**I agree my grievance should be directed to Jeb Bush. However, at this point in time, because of impassioned national interest and at citizen urging, the president and congress are involved.

The finite ethic is "reverence for life". "...life which wills to live in the midst of life which wills to live."
-Dr. Albert Schweitzer

[FBD]

>"You'll survive. ;-) "<

- So you think I'm gonna make it after all, eh?
whew...I was worried for a minute! ;^D

"Seriously I derived my position by following the same principles I use when the discussion is illegal aliens: Human laws are designed for people and for the upholding of their unalienable rights, not the other way around."

-Well FRiend, we'll leave that *other* subject for future threads, but I will admit that I have a great deal more respect for you, now that I know where your perspective is coming from.

Here is a webblog you may like, dealing with this subject (Dr Bob) doctorisin.blogspot.com

---

[snip]
"Great evil springs in countless small steps from lesser evil. Jesus Christ was doubtless not the first innocent man Pilate condemned to death; soft porn came before child porn, snuff films, and rape videos; in the childhood of the serial killer lies cruelty to animals.

Small evils harden the heart, making greater evil easier, more routine, less chilling. We marvel at the hideousness of the final act, but the descent to depravity is a gentle slope downwards.

The false optimism of expediency: Solve the problem today, deny any future consequences. We are nearsighted creatures in the extreme, seeing only the benefits of our current actions while dismissing the potential for unknown, disastrous ramifications.

When Baby Knauer, an infant with blindness, mental retardation and physical deformities, became the first child euthanized in Germany, who could foresee the horrors of Auschwitz and Dachau?"

---

Many well meaning folks continue to ignore the time proven slippery slope argument...but as you know, it's already in the Netherlands:

Groningen Protocol: "Dutch hospital says it euthanized babies"

Regards