Posted on 03/29/2005 3:30:56 PM PST by ninenot
Free Republic has gone to hell.
Bump
There are First Things, and then there are civil laws and constitutions.
Under the civil laws and constitutions of the Third Reich, Hitler's actions were perfectly legal.
So were Clinton's in the Elian Gonzalez affair.
Of course, at FR, there are those who think that a life here, a life there--that's not too important vs. the image of good little Republican boys with their white and unspotted gloves...
Yep this article has documentation to the hilt.....
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
A Man For All Seasons, by Robert Bolt
Jayson Blair just vouched for this story and the sources.
Good post!
Irrelevant and immaterial. More's conundrum was not related to the Life issue (except his own...) and it is clear that under the FL Constitution AND the US Constitution, either executive (or Congressional) actions can be taken.
Further, it is clear that the Fed Courts simply ignored explicit Congressional language in failing to de-novo review the case.
Amen to that.
I don't worry too much about the Spectator's sources--they have been very reliable reporters of events in DC (and Arkansas) for at least 25 years.
Well, that makes a lot of sense.
Which of those patriots fought to protect legalized MURDER in the USA?
Name a few. I WILL spit on their graves.
Actually, it is not clear at all.
Further, it is clear that the Fed Courts simply ignored explicit Congressional language in failing to de-novo review the case.
Please quit blaming the courts for not reaching beyond the pleading filed by Gibbs. He deliberately threw the case by not filing a review for the merits of the ruling, merely by rehashing already-settled procedural arguments.
They fought to preserve the Rule of Law, something which you for which you apparently have little respect. Nobody likes every law on the books, and we don't get it right every time, but it's the system and process that has made us the greatest and most compassionate nation on the planet.
You hit the nail on the head with this post.
Except the biggie. The activist judiciary. They will never control this because they are a bunch of weenies.
We should not expect the AG to be about crafting some perfect, legal excuse for protecting and preserving innocent life. It is a matter for the people and all branches of government to be about. In this case, all three branches of government have abdicated their responsibilities. So have a good many citizens.
I reckon he's too busy going after the tobacco companies, crafting new "Assault" Weapon Ban legislation and attending La Raza meetings.
Beat me to it, eg.
Sorry--I don't have respect for a Rule of Law which allows Murder One by a conniving judge and a craven Husband-In-Name-Only.
And your preaching ain't gonna change my attitude.
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.