Posted on 03/31/2005 3:11:22 PM PST by Crackingham
Ironically, it is the Mary Jo event that has obviously caused TK to change his stance on whether water is of life saving benefit for an incapacitated woman.
The religious right got a lot of patronage, and now they're going to renege on repaying that patronage. Someone stiffs me on a business deal, he will repay me one way or another. Same with the religious right. They will repay their loan--or they will be forever frozen out.
Contempt of Congress in ignoring dult issued subpoenas.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Clause 1: ...
Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Somehow I think we'll survive without you.
Good Luck.
Impeaching them is too good for them.....jail them.
Actually, that's a very interesting idea. I'm obviously no lawyer, but whatever law authorized this death is unconstitutional on its face, since killing someone deprives them of all constitutional rights.
An impeachment is not subject to any review by any court. Not even the Supreme court. If a supermajority of senators vote to convict, then the judge is outa there. Slam Bam.
It wouldn't matter whether a court has ever decided the constitutionality of the authorizing statute. The Congress can use whatever basis they want for their decision. Dems can scream all day long that "IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL". But the bottom line is there's no court that can reverse an impeachment.
Of course, the pubs have no brass, so it won't happen.
So far it seems all we've gotten is talk. Obviously the big fish to fry are judicial nominees bieing given a vote. Yeah, we got the nominations but no action.IMHO
What's this then?
28 U.S.C. 1870.It's a law altering the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Chapter VI, Rule 47(b).In civil cases, each party shall be entitled to three peremptory challenges. Several defendants or several plaintiffs may be considered as a single party for the purposes of making challenges, or the court may allow additional peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule47.htmRule 47. Selection of Jurors
(a) Examination of Jurors
The court may permit the parties or their attorneys to conduct the examination of prospective jurors or may itself conduct the examination. In the latter event, the court shall permit the parties or their attorneys to supplement the examination by such further inquiry as it deems proper or shall itself submit to the prospective jurors such additional questions of the parties or their attorneys as it deems proper.(b) Peremptory Challenges.
The court shall allow the number of peremptory challenges provided by 28 U.S.C. 1870.(c) Excuse.
The court may for good cause excuse a juror from service during trial or deliberation.
Why don't you apply to be on the team preparing the defense for the impeachment.
But you sure as hell won't survive without the GOP--and stiffing them as you're threatening to do in 2006 is going to cost you ALL access within the GOP.
Delay's dad was on machine life support. Without it he was actually deceased. There was no family disagreement whatsoever. No relevance to the Terri case. Bet the Liberal Media told you differently, though. Reminds me of a scripture verse: "They lie, and do not the truth".
Y'all blew the chance to get those nominees to a vote in order to save Terri Schiavo.
Yeah, we got the nominations but no action.IMHO
Your choice. And now you're going to cut and run. Brilliant.
Ha. I like the way you think. :-)
It would be absurd to think that Congress can create or dissolve a court at its whim, but that it could not tell the court how to operate.
In my opinion, the courts have operated outside the Constitution on this matter. I do not believe for a second that our Constituion allows barbaric treatment of its people.
The Supreme Court is a joke. They tell us the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment for murderers under the age of 18, but apparently feel that starving someone to death is ok.
We aren't done yet are we Mr. Brilliant. This battle has just begun and now you are ready to quit?
Just think of all the Social Security money we can save if we just have grandma put down a few months early. [/sarcasm]
I've been told to f*** off one time too many by you people. So I'm just taking you up on your request. Do without my money, my efforts, and my vote.
Totally within the rights and duties of Congress.
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.