[twigs]

Would you want a President Hillary Clinton to step in because she thinks something is more important than states' rights? Terri's life is vitally important. But so is the future and therefore, so is precedence.

[Trust but Verify]

I agree with you. I was responding to a post that said the WH might be trying to find a way to deal with this without setting a precedence. I replied that if we all (not me) think stepping in would be the right thing, then why worry if it sets a precedence?

[Aquinasfan]

Would you want a President Hillary Clinton to step in because she thinks something is more important than states' rights?

Irrelevant. You do the right thing regardless of some future hypothetical.

[frgoff]

Would you want a President Hillary Clinton to step in because she thinks something is more important than states' rights? Terri's life is vitally important. But so is the future and therefore, so is precedence.

The moment Congress, exercising it's authority under the U.S. Constitution, assigned this case federal jurisdiction, it became a FEDERAL matter.

Stop it with this stupid states rights nonsense. That dog won't hunt.

[Dead Dog]

She will first chance she gets, regardless of the precident.