She could have drawn up a living will. She did not. There is no moral choice under these circumstances. She must be fed until she dies of natural causes and not due to human intervention.
When did you become emperor of the world? The relevant law says that in the event of someone not having a Living Will, the next of kin shall make the decision. The next of kin is her husband.
I suppose we should amend the constituion to take out the phrases about not depriving anyone without due process of law.
This case has been litigated for nearly a decade. "Due process of law" does not mean "keep filing appeals and frivolous motions until you achieve a result that jethro bodine approves of, and then stop." The federal courts have several times found that due process has been observed. The US Supreme Court has refused to review it one more than one occasion. Sure sounds like "due process" to me.
When did you become emperor of the world? When did you get to the point that you have no regard for human life?  The relevant law says that in the event of someone not having a Living Will, the next of kin shall make the decision. The next of kin is her husband. A man with a clear conflict of interest. This is not a case of someone that is dying. She is living, if she is fed, just like everyone else. Â
If you read this order you will find that the court said that Ms. Schiavo's wishes were independent of her husband. In fact it says it is the judges decision. We do have government killing its innocent and helpless citizens. Sounds like nazi germany.  http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/Order%20of%20Death%20091703.pdf
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Mar 24, 2005 at 03:12pm.]
Dan, it would be nice if you had printed the entire specificities, instead of one sentence, out of context.
I refuse to use the next 20 or 30 posts to put the entire law here (yes, it is about that long). If you feel that I took something out of context, go back to the link that I did provide and show me where I am wrong.
Nevertheless, the simple facts are these:
These "facts" have nothing to do with the law in Texas that was being discussed, but I will look at them anyway.
There have been 10 Judges, and all 10have ruled in favor of the Husband. Not even ONEhas decided in favor of the parents.
If it has been decided based on the hearsay of the husband who has children by another woman that he is living with that this born, living person's life is not worth protecting, then put her out of her misery and do not put her through the pain of starvation/dehydration. We would do that much for a dog or cat.
The American public, by a 7 to 3 margin(and in FL. it is 6 to 4), have decided that this issue is irrelevent to them, and should have been decided by the STATE, not the FED Govt.
Since when have we become a country of mob rule and not a country of laws? Do you really want to go down that road? Especially in a part of the country that you have said is racist?
Jethro is a simpleton, and quite the littleÂ
Bi
otch
.
I fail to see what this has to do with the current discussion and is nothing more than childish name calling.
This my only input of the Schiavo case. It seems to me they could just give her a shot to kill her rather then let her starve/dehydrate to death. I really do not see the point in straving the body to death. If they know she will die, just make it as painless to the body as is possible. That's what I would want done for me.
So you are saying that you have been to court and the judge allowed your they said/he said/she said and that we are a country of mob rule? Interesting.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Mar 25, 2005 at 06:31pm.]
So you are saying that you have been to court and the judge allowed your they said/he said/she said and that we are a country of mob rule? Interesting.
Not me, her husband.
Don't know where you get this "mob rule" shit from though.
We were discussing you being a witness though. However, if you wish to take the word of a man who is fighting for his wife in the hospital to starve to death while he is also living with another woman who has had his children...
Don't know where you get this "mob rule" shit from though.
Your last post had a quote from me addressing Fold's post about a poll that was taken.
You were avoiding discussing the fact that this case has already been ruled on by several courts, all in favor of granting her wish to not be kept alive while not actually having any sort of "life" to speak of.
What I think has nothing to do with it. It's none of my business, nor is it any business of Congress.
Your last post had a quote from me addressing Fold's post about a poll that was taken.
You are avoiding the fact that "mob rule" has nothing to do with the fact that several courts of law have ruled in their favor, not to mention rulings that say the laws to meddle in this family matter are unconstitutional.
You were avoiding discussing the fact that this case has already been ruled on by several courts
If it (court decision) has been decided based on the hearsay of the husband who has children by another woman that he is living with that this born, living person's life is not worth protecting, then put her out of her misery and do not put her through the pain of starvation/dehydration. We would do that much for a dog or cat. Grandpa Dan Zachary 3/25/05 7:37am
If it (court decision) has been decided based on the hearsay of the husband who has children by another woman that he is living with that this born, living person's life is not worth protecting, then put her out of her misery and do not put her through the pain of starvation/dehydration.
So, you were in court and know what it was decided on?
As for "put her out of her misery", are you now deciding how this should be handled? Aren't you one of the mob, or were you the judge?
I'm with Wolvie on this. Regardless of the right or wrong of the case itself, this is supposedly a civilized country in a civilized century, and purposelystarving someone to death, literally at the point of a gun, is barbaric.
"The weakness of the social conservative case is that for most of us, especially in these days of advanced medical technology, it is hard to ignore distinctions between different modes of living. In some hospital rooms, there are people living forms of existence that upon direct contact do seem even worse than death."
and
"You are saying, as liberals do say, that society should be neutral and allow people to make their own choices. You are saying, as liberals do say, that we should be tolerant and nonjudgmental toward people who make different choices.
"What begins as an appealing notion - that life and death are joined by a continuum - becomes vapid mush, because we are all invited to punt when it comes time to do the hard job of standing up for common principles, arguing right and wrong, and judging those who make bad decisions."
and
"What I'm describing here is the clash of two serious but flawed arguments. The socially conservative argument has tremendous moral force, but doesn't accord with the reality we see when we walk through a hospice. The socially liberal argument is pragmatic, but lacks moral force.
"No wonder many of us feel agonized this week, betwixt and between, as that poor woman slowly dehydrates."
So then, what can we do? NOTHING, except fight about it based upon Politics and our own personal value's systems, which have already been decided, long ago and in our early lives.
For once we agree. We can argue back and forth, but it doesn't solve anything. All's I wish for her is that they wouldn't starve her. Get it over with.
It's the difference between killing her and letting her die.
The people who want to prevent her from dying are the same people who make euthanasia against the law and therefore make her have to die on her own instead of helping her die.
You want to help put her out of her misery, quit insisting euthanasia is illegal.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by molegrass on Mar 26, 2005 at 10:52am.]
I'm with Wolvie on this. Regardless of the right or wrong of the case itself, this is supposedly a civilized country in a civilized century, and purposelystarving someone to death, literally at the point of a gun, is barbaric.
You don't see conservatives cheering the starvation of Ms. Schiavo. You only hear liberals urging her death by any means possible.
You don't hear liberals "cheering," except in your demon-haunted brain, and a number of PF's conservatives have stated that they feel Mrs. Schiavo should be allowed to join her God.
Poll: Keep Feeding Tube Out NEW YORK, March 23, 2005 Americans have strong feelings about the Terri Schiavo case, and a majority says the feeding tube should not now be re-inserted. This view is shared by Americans of all political persuasions. Most think the feeding tube should have been removed, and most also do not think the U.S. Supreme Court should hear the case.
An overwhelming 82 percent of the public believes the Congress and President should stay out of the matter. There is widespread cynicism about Congress' motives for getting involved: 74 percent say Congress intervened to advance a political agenda, not because they cared what happened to Terri Schiavo. Public approval of Congress has suffered as a result; at 34 percent, it is the lowest it has been since 1997, dropping from 41 percent last month. Now at 43 percent, President Bush’s approval rating is also lower than it was a month ago.
There are no partisan political differences on this issue: majorities of Democrats (89 percent), Republicans (72 percent), liberals (84 percent) and conservatives (76 percent) are in agreement that the government should not be involved.
You don't hear liberals "cheering," except in your demon-haunted brain, and a number of PF's conservatives have stated that they feel Mrs. Schiavo should be allowed to join her God.
Yes I do hear it. And I also hear them deny that they are doing it. They lie over and over and over. For someone reason they expect people to believe them.
Death is no longer considered the transition to the afterlife? I missed that e-mail. I've been to more than one funeral where a Christian minister chided the attendees for crying; we were told we should be rejoicing for our friend who was now in Heaven.
The actual protections discussed in the constitutional amendments have morphed into “zones of privacy” through judicial interpretations. From Griswold v. Connecticutin 1965 to the present day, the courts have fabricated and expanded these zones to include more and more peripheral rights, limited only by the imagination in their scope, to be discovered on a case-by-case basis. Activist judges and their cohorts in the ACLU and elsewhere contend that these peripheral rights help make the actual rights named in the Constitution and its amendments more secure. Rights to equal protection and due process have morphed into privacy zones that include the right to unlimited abortion, the right to sodomy, and now the right to distribute pornographic videos depicting women being beaten, raped, and murdered. Were these the rights the writers of the Constitution and its amendments envisioned?
Jethro, you and your "Activist Judges" bullshit is SO tired, (and a lie that you have come to actually believe in), and SO
politically motivated
that I don't know who you think you are fooling, besides yourself, that is.
If you could understand the constitution and had a grasp on US history you would know that the judiciary is legislating and is violating the separation of powers.
The vast majority of Judges in this country are good judges, who look at the cases before them and make decisions based upon the law and the facts before them, and they don't make ANY laws, at all.Â
But it only takes a few judges in certain positions to do the damage. I can name a number of them but one of the worst was that Minnesotan Harry Blackmun. ROE, is not a "Law", it was an interpretation of a CASE that someone brought before the Supreme Court.
it is the law. No state can ban abortion. And it appears based on more recent rulings, that it for all intents and purposes can't be regulated.  If you couldn't have it both ways, you wouldn't be satisfied at all.
What does this mean? It sounds like nonsense. ANY Judge that does not decide a case the way YOU want, is an "activist" judge.
That is utter bullshit. An activist judge is one that legislates policy instead of applying the constitution. Read Roe v. Wade. It was nothing but legislation.
Anyone who ever had a Civics class, knows full well that Judges decide things,and that means someone has to "Win" the case, and someone has to "Lose" the case, and that means someone will likely be pissed about the decision made.
One can decide a case without rewriting the constitution. That was what happened in Roe. There is no right to privacy in the constitution. The fact that the fourth amendment says that unreasonable searches and seizures certainly means that reasonable searches are fine. You can't square that with a blanket right to privacy.  (That does NOT make the Judge defective or "Activist".)  But that's tough-shit, because that is the way our system works, as it was designed to do. It is the third arm of our checks and balances system.
It does not work as it was designed to. The Supreme Court assumed power it didn't have when it declared it was the final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional. Look it up. It isn't in the constitution. There is no check on the Supreme Court. What you support is an oligarchy not democracy or representative government. The problem is you are too dumb to understand it. It is you and the rest of the ignorant folk that is conceding our right to choose our laws to a few folks that are unanswerable to anyone.
That is why we have an appeal's process...? You don't like one judges decisions, then APPEAL.
There is no appeal from a Supreme Court decision. Somewhere along the line, you may even find yourself agreeing with the decision. After all, they cannot ALL be "Activist", can they? The Court needs to be bound by the written rules or there are not any rules.
Maybe it would help if you said just Who is an "activist judge"... OR better yet, What , is an "Activist Judge", to you...and why
?
It isn't who, it is what is done. An activist judge is a judge that makes things up that are not in the constitution because he wants a specific result. Roe v. Wade is just that. So is the rulings on prayer in school. Those decisions ignored history and "gave" the constitution a meaning it never had or was intended to have. When that happens power is taken away from the people to decide what laws they want to live under. And that is why the US exists at all because the people wanted to live under laws that they made. It is really simply even you should be able to understand it.
Â
It isn't who, it is what is done. An activist judge is a judge that makes things up that are not in the constitution because he wants a specific result. Roe v. Wade is just that. So is the rulings on prayer in school. Those decisions ignored history and "gave" the constitution a meaning it never had or was intended to have.
( That is your opinion .)
 No it is fact. And if you would read history you would know that.When that happens power is taken away from the people to decide what laws they want to live under.
(
The people must live under ALL the Laws, or fight to change those Laws that they find offensive.
(There is no person, none, who is ABOVE any law.)  It is a question of who makes those laws. The people or the Supreme Court. Rational people would choose the people over the Court.
(And the U.S. "Exists", because a LOT of people came here... Mostly to search for Gold and Treasures, but later to free themselves from religious persecution and unfair taxation, and because they simply FOUND this new land and they wanted to start a new life, HERE. It is called "Adventure". Look it up...K?
The US government exists because people wanted to be free to choose their own laws not have others impose their law on them.
But, what does THIS mean, Mr. "
Lawyer"
...?
Article III - Section 2, of The United States Constitution
Clause 1: The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution , the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States -- between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects .
To ME, (and perhaps millions of others) that says that the SC
will have the Duty
as the third branch of our checks and balances system
 to decipher the U.S. Constitution and laws regarding every single detail of dispute between any two parties, and the U.S. Constitution or State Constitutions or Laws, (or between state's and their citizens...) Doesn't it?
The Courts should rule consistent with what the Constitution actually says in light of what those that drafted it and ratified it wanted it to mean. It is limit on the Courts power but one that means that the judges have to have self restraint. The Constitution either means something specific or it means nothing at all.
By the way, you intelligent son'bitch, how come the Congress MADE a Law regarding One Personlast week... (to which Gdubbya promptly signed it into "Law"...?), as in Terri Schiavo
???
No they did not. The law intended that the federal court's have jurisdiction to review the case de novo. It did not dictate the result. Doesn't that
illegal and unconstitutional act
concern you?
No. It certainly does concern me, because it DOES violate the Government's power under
'bill of attainder' which is illegal in everystate, and under the U.S. Â Â Â Constitution, yet they proceeded to pass the Schiavo law anyway, and Dubbya signed it
.
You are only spouting stuff you have heard. You haven't given the matter any independent thought. That is most certainly clear.
Now what would you say if (and when) the SC says what they did was Illegaland Unconstitutional? That they are "Legislating" from the bench? That they are being "Activist"? Of course you will.
It is amazing how little you know.
Funny how you(Jethro) always say NOTHING in answer to direct questions based upon the "opinions" you spout in here, and then go right on to accuse all others of how ignorant of the law THEY are.
I have answered your questions directly over and over again. You just don't have the capacity to understand the answers.Â
When did you become emperor of the world? The relevant law says that in the event of someone not having a Living Will, the next of kin shall make the decision. The next of kin is her husband.
This case has been litigated for nearly a decade. "Due process of law" does not mean "keep filing appeals and frivolous motions until you achieve a result that jethro bodine approves of, and then stop." The federal courts have several times found that due process has been observed. The US Supreme Court has refused to review it one more than one occasion. Sure sounds like "due process" to me.
When did you become emperor of the world? When did you get to the point that you have no regard for human life?  The relevant law says that in the event of someone not having a Living Will, the next of kin shall make the decision. The next of kin is her husband. A man with a clear conflict of interest. This is not a case of someone that is dying. She is living, if she is fed, just like everyone else.
Â
Â
If you read this order you will find that the court said that Ms. Schiavo's wishes were independent of her husband. In fact it says it is the judges decision. We do have government killing its innocent and helpless citizens. Sounds like nazi germany.  http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/Order%20of%20Death%20091703.pdf
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Mar 24, 2005 at 03:12pm.]
Dan, it would be nice if you had printed the entire specificities, instead of one sentence, out of context.
I refuse to use the next 20 or 30 posts to put the entire law here (yes, it is about that long). If you feel that I took something out of context, go back to the link that I did provide and show me where I am wrong.
Nevertheless, the simple facts are these:
These "facts" have nothing to do with the law in Texas that was being discussed, but I will look at them anyway.
There have been 10 Judges, and all 10have ruled in favor of the Husband. Not even ONEhas decided in favor of the parents.
If it has been decided based on the hearsay of the husband who has children by another woman that he is living with that this born, living person's life is not worth protecting, then put her out of her misery and do not put her through the pain of starvation/dehydration. We would do that much for a dog or cat.
The American public, by a 7 to 3 margin(and in FL. it is 6 to 4), have decided that this issue is irrelevent to them, and should have been decided by the STATE, not the FED Govt.
Since when have we become a country of mob rule and not a country of laws? Do you really want to go down that road? Especially in a part of the country that you have said is racist?
Jethro is a simpleton, and quite the littleÂ
Bi
otch
.
I fail to see what this has to do with the current discussion and is nothing more than childish name calling.
[Edited by on Mar 25, 2005 at 08:00am.]
This my only input of the Schiavo case. It seems to me they could just give her a shot to kill her rather then let her starve/dehydrate to death. I really do not see the point in straving the body to death. If they know she will die, just make it as painless to the body as is possible. That's what I would want done for me.
It has stood up in courts, several times now already.
So you are saying that you have been to court and the judge allowed your they said/he said/she said and that we are a country of mob rule? Interesting.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Mar 25, 2005 at 06:31pm.]
Not me, her husband.
Don't know where you get this "mob rule" shit from though.
[Edited by molegrass on Mar 25, 2005 at 06:58pm.]
Not me, her husband.
We were discussing you being a witness though. However, if you wish to take the word of a man who is fighting for his wife in the hospital to starve to death while he is also living with another woman who has had his children...
Don't know where you get this "mob rule" shit from though.
Your last post had a quote from me addressing Fold's post about a poll that was taken.
You may have been, but I sure as hell wasn't.
You were avoiding discussing the fact that this case has already been ruled on by several courts, all in favor of granting her wish to not be kept alive while not actually having any sort of "life" to speak of.
What I think has nothing to do with it. It's none of my business, nor is it any business of Congress.
You are avoiding the fact that "mob rule" has nothing to do with the fact that several courts of law have ruled in their favor, not to mention rulings that say the laws to meddle in this family matter are unconstitutional.
You were avoiding discussing the fact that this case has already been ruled on by several courts
I have already given my oppinion on that.
So, you were in court and know what it was decided on?
As for "put her out of her misery", are you now deciding how this should be handled? Aren't you one of the mob, or were you the judge?
an opinion based on a "if"... swell.
[Edited by molegrass on Mar 25, 2005 at 08:46pm.]
"Aren't you one of the mob, or were you the judge? "
This whole Shiavo story is in the hands of the mob. It's amazing . Whatta sideshow.
I'm with Wolvie on this. Regardless of the right or wrong of the case itself, this is supposedly a civilized country in a civilized century, and purposelystarving someone to death, literally at the point of a gun, is barbaric.
Literally, in that people are stopped by police from giving Terri food or water.
And the fact is that she is being starved to death. Nobody disagrees on that. And it's barbaric.
Neither side seem to be right to David Brooks
"The weakness of the social conservative case is that for most of us, especially in these days of advanced medical technology, it is hard to ignore distinctions between different modes of living. In some hospital rooms, there are people living forms of existence that upon direct contact do seem even worse than death."
and
"You are saying, as liberals do say, that society should be neutral and allow people to make their own choices. You are saying, as liberals do say, that we should be tolerant and nonjudgmental toward people who make different choices.
"What begins as an appealing notion - that life and death are joined by a continuum - becomes vapid mush, because we are all invited to punt when it comes time to do the hard job of standing up for common principles, arguing right and wrong, and judging those who make bad decisions."
and
"What I'm describing here is the clash of two serious but flawed arguments. The socially conservative argument has tremendous moral force, but doesn't accord with the reality we see when we walk through a hospice. The socially liberal argument is pragmatic, but lacks moral force.
"No wonder many of us feel agonized this week, betwixt and between, as that poor woman slowly dehydrates."
So then, what can we do? NOTHING, except fight about it based upon Politics and our own personal value's systems, which have already been decided, long ago and in our early lives.
For once we agree. We can argue back and forth, but it doesn't solve anything. All's I wish for her is that they wouldn't starve her. Get it over with.
It's the difference between killing her and letting her die.
The people who want to prevent her from dying are the same people who make euthanasia against the law and therefore make her have to die on her own instead of helping her die.
You want to help put her out of her misery, quit insisting euthanasia is illegal.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by molegrass on Mar 26, 2005 at 10:52am.]
You were avoiding discussing the fact that this case has already been ruled on by several courts
But only liberals "know" that judges are infallible.
I'm with Wolvie on this. Regardless of the right or wrong of the case itself, this is supposedly a civilized country in a civilized century, and purposelystarving someone to death, literally at the point of a gun, is barbaric.
You don't hear liberals "cheering," except in your demon-haunted brain, and a number of PF's conservatives have stated that they feel Mrs. Schiavo should be allowed to join her God.
[Edited by on Mar 28, 2005 at 04:23pm.]
and jethro believes in the rule of law, providing it's convienent.
what's next? picket funerals and graveyards? I mean, if we freeze them, maybe we can preserve their body until it can be revived, right?
I got a news flash for you... everyone is going to die... you are going to die... everyone is going to die.
[Edited by molegrass on Mar 28, 2005 at 05:53pm.]
Everyone is going to die, and Christians used to believe that death was the transition to Glory. What happened?
:: cues Albert King doing Everybody Wants To Go To Heavan But Nobody Wants To Die ::
You don't hear liberals "cheering," except in your demon-haunted brain, and a number of PF's conservatives have stated that they feel Mrs. Schiavo should be allowed to join her God.
Yes I do hear it. And I also hear them deny that they are doing it. They lie over and over and over. For someone reason they expect people to believe them.
Everyone is going to die, and Christians used to believe that death was the transition to Glory. What happened?
Such a statement shows your complete ignorance on the subject. It is your M.O.
of course, bodine also hears God telling him to judge everyone else
Death is no longer considered the transition to the afterlife? I missed that e-mail. I've been to more than one funeral where a Christian minister chided the attendees for crying; we were told we should be rejoicing for our friend who was now in Heaven.
The actual protections discussed in the constitutional amendments have morphed into “zones of privacy” through judicial interpretations. From Griswold v. Connecticutin 1965 to the present day, the courts have fabricated and expanded these zones to include more and more peripheral rights, limited only by the imagination in their scope, to be discovered on a case-by-case basis. Activist judges and their cohorts in the ACLU and elsewhere contend that these peripheral rights help make the actual rights named in the Constitution and its amendments more secure. Rights to equal protection and due process have morphed into privacy zones that include the right to unlimited abortion, the right to sodomy, and now the right to distribute pornographic videos depicting women being beaten, raped, and murdered. Were these the rights the writers of the Constitution and its amendments envisioned?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Sears20050331.shtml
as much as they were able to envision them, yes, absolutely.
the right of privacy was one of the things they envisioned.
Jethro, you and your "Activist Judges" bullshit is SO tired, (and a lie that you have come to actually believe in), and SO
politically motivated
that I don't know who you think you are fooling, besides yourself, that is.
If you could understand the constitution and had a grasp on US history you would know that the judiciary is legislating and is violating the separation of powers.
The vast majority of Judges in this country are good judges, who look at the cases before them and make decisions based upon the law and the facts before them, and they don't make ANY laws, at all.Â
But it only takes a few judges in certain positions to do the damage. I can name a number of them but one of the worst was that Minnesotan Harry Blackmun.
ROE, is not a "Law", it was an interpretation of a CASE that someone brought before the Supreme Court.
it is the law. No state can ban abortion. And it appears based on more recent rulings, that it for all intents and purposes can't be regulated.
 If you couldn't have it both ways, you wouldn't be satisfied at all.
What does this mean? It sounds like nonsense.
ANY Judge that does not decide a case the way YOU want, is an "activist" judge.
That is utter bullshit. An activist judge is one that legislates policy instead of applying the constitution. Read Roe v. Wade. It was nothing but legislation.
Anyone who ever had a Civics class, knows full well that Judges
decide things,and that means someone has to "Win" the case, and someone has to "Lose" the case, and that means someone will likely be pissed about the decision made.
One can decide a case without rewriting the constitution. That was what happened in Roe. There is no right to privacy in the constitution. The fact that the fourth amendment says that unreasonable searches and seizures certainly means that reasonable searches are fine. You can't square that with a blanket right to privacy.
 (That does NOT make the Judge defective or "Activist".)  But that's tough-shit, because that is the way our system works, as it was designed to do. It is the third arm of our checks and balances system.
It does not work as it was designed to. The Supreme Court assumed power it didn't have when it declared it was the final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional. Look it up. It isn't in the constitution. There is no check on the Supreme Court. What you support is an oligarchy not democracy or representative government. The problem is you are too dumb to understand it. It is you and the rest of the ignorant folk that is conceding our right to choose our laws to a few folks that are unanswerable to anyone.
That is why we have an appeal's process...? You don't like one judges decisions, then APPEAL.
There is no appeal from a Supreme Court decision.
Somewhere along the line, you may even find yourself agreeing with the decision. After all, they cannot ALL be "Activist", can they? The Court needs to be bound by the written rules or there are not any rules.
Maybe it would help if you said just
Who
is an "activist judge"... OR better yet,
What
, is an "Activist Judge", to you...and
why
?
It isn't who, it is what is done. An activist judge is a judge that makes things up that are not in the constitution because he wants a specific result. Roe v. Wade is just that. So is the rulings on prayer in school. Those decisions ignored history and "gave" the constitution a meaning it never had or was intended to have. When that happens power is taken away from the people to decide what laws they want to live under. And that is why the US exists at all because the people wanted to live under laws that they made. It is really simply even you should be able to understand it.
The Court needs to be bound by the written rules or there are not any rules.
obviously the founding fathers didn't find this to be the case, or they would have mentioned something to that effect in the constitution.
obviously the founding fathers didn't find this to be the case, or they would have mentioned something to that effect in the constitution.
you're a supposedly intelligent person. you figure it out.
you're a supposedly intelligent person. you figure it out.
The irony of Fold criticizing someone who actually has a job.
Â
It isn't who, it is what is done. An activist judge is a judge that makes things up that are not in the constitution because he wants a specific result. Roe v. Wade is just that. So is the rulings on prayer in school. Those decisions ignored history and "gave" the constitution a meaning it never had or was intended to have.
(
That is your opinion
.)
 No it is fact. And if you would read history you would know that.When that happens power is taken away from the people to decide what laws they want to live under.
(
The people must live under ALL the Laws, or fight to change those Laws that they find offensive.
(There is no person, none, who is ABOVE any law.)
 It is a question of who makes those laws. The people or the Supreme Court. Rational people would choose the people over the Court.
(And the U.S. "Exists", because a LOT of people came here... Mostly to search for Gold and Treasures, but later to free themselves from religious persecution and unfair taxation, and because they simply FOUND this new land and they wanted to start a new life, HERE. It is called "Adventure".
Look it up...K?
The US government exists because people wanted to be free to choose their own laws not have others impose their law on them.
But, what does THIS mean, Mr. "
Lawyer"
...?
Article III - Section 2, of The United States Constitution
Clause 1: The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
arising under this Constitution
, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States -- between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States,
and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects
.
To ME, (and perhaps millions of others) that says that the SC
will
have the Duty
as the third branch of our checks and balances system
 to decipher the U.S. Constitution and laws regarding every single detail of dispute between any two parties, and the U.S. Constitution or State Constitutions or Laws, (or between state's and their citizens...) Doesn't it?
The Courts should rule consistent with what the Constitution actually says in light of what those that drafted it and ratified it wanted it to mean. It is limit on the Courts power but one that means that the judges have to have self restraint. The Constitution either means something specific or it means nothing at all.
By the way,
you intelligent son'bitch,
how come the Congress MADE a Law regarding One Personlast week... (to which Gdubbya promptly signed it into "Law"...?), as in
Terri Schiavo
???
No they did not. The law intended that the federal court's have jurisdiction to review the case de novo. It did not dictate the result.
Doesn't that
illegal and unconstitutional act
concern you?
No.
It certainly does concern me, because it DOES violate the Government's power under
'bill of attainder'
which is illegal in everystate, and under the U.S.
  Â
Constitution, yet they proceeded to pass the Schiavo law anyway, and Dubbya
signed it
.
You are only spouting stuff you have heard. You haven't given the matter any independent thought. That is most certainly clear.
Now what would you say if (and when) the SC says what they did was Illegaland Unconstitutional? That they are "Legislating" from the bench? That they are being "Activist"? Of course you will.
It is amazing how little you know.
No it's not.
Which is why there's now a right to privacy.
I still want to know where he got his JD, and how many times it took him to pass the bar.
<insert joke about not passing one since _________ here>
[Edited by on Apr 5, 2005 at 03:43pm.]
Heh, and you follow Windsuck's every word like it was gospel.
For those of you who don't know, Windycity is was an attorney who couldn't make it and now declares himself a "consultant".
Get a job, Fold.
Which is why there's now a right to privacy.
Only an idiot actually believes that. The people that intially came up with the concept didn't believe it.
Funny how you(Jethro) always say
NOTHING
in answer to direct questions based upon the "opinions" you spout in here, and then go right on to accuse all others of how ignorant of the law
THEY
are.
I have answered your questions directly over and over again. You just don't have the capacity to understand the answers.Â
Pieter...He gradiamatedfrom The Christ-Child School, class of 19__ ,  and,  he never did pass...obviously.
obviously you have an inferiority complex, fold. No doubt you know you couldn't hack law school. Â
As much as it pains some people to believe, Jethro is in fact an attorney.
[Edited by on Apr 8, 2005 at 05:19am.]
jethro bodine - pet attorney
Lord knows that Fold has all the time in the world.
Perhaps if he was employed...........................................
I'm Bodine, crabhole, remember?
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8