.....however, women are doing what they feel is responsible if they can not care for a child because abortion is a legal option! No, they are only getting rid of a "problem" they don't want to deal with.So again I ask, what type of solutions are there to stop all this. We educate children from 6th grade about safe sex. I stated the issue with adoption. What can we do to chane society's view as a whole? Society's view as a whole is that abortion is wrong. Even many supporters of legalized abortion say it is "wrong for them." Abortion is wrong-period.
Jethro speaks the truth here. He does not debate, he pontificates.
There is nothing in the US Constitution about a right to privacy
Straw man. The Bill of Rights does not list the rights granted to the people by the government, it limits the power of government. Many of the founding fathers, particularly the Federalists so beloved of conservatives, were concerned that enumerating certain rights would lead to people making the argument that jethro makes here, which is why the Ninth Amendment was added.
It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
-James Madison
 Â
The Ninth specifically describes and prohibits what jethro is trying to do here.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The right of privacy is implicit in the first, third, fourth and fifth amendments, the Court found in Griswold v. Connecticut, which was the basis for their so finding in Roe v. Wade.
There is nothing in the US Constitution about a right to privacy
Straw man. Spoken like a man that does not know a damn thing about the constitution. The Bill of Rights does not list the rights granted to the people by the government, it limits the power of government. It limits the power of the FEDERAL government. Read the 10th Amendment.Many of the founding fathers, particularly the Federalists so beloved of conservatives, were concerned that enumerating certain rights would lead to people making the argument that jethro makes here, which is why the Ninth Amendment was added.
The 9th Amendment refers to rights retained by the people  It says nothing about the federal government deciding what those rights are. Again read the 10th Amendment.
The Ninth specifically describes and prohibits what jethro is trying to dohere. B.S. You are so damn ignorant. You do not understand the plain meaning of what is
written. You pervert everything you read. Perversion is at the core of your being.
The right of privacy is implicit in the first, third, fourth and fifth amendments, the Court found in Griswold v. Connecticut,which was the basis for their so finding in Roe v. Wade. Griswold was an abuse of power. It totally ignored the 10th amendment.The Griswold decision's purpose was to change the law as to who should or should not have contraceptive, a policy decision that has nothing to do with rights.
Read Black's dissent and enlighten
yourself. I also suggest you read Men in Black. It should set even someone so full of
bull
shit like you straight. The 10th amendment provides that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to determine what people's rights are. The only thing mentioned in the bill of rights that remotely regards privacy is the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Reasonable searches and seizures are fine. So much for a blanket right to privacy. It is isn't there. It is a figment of warped imaginations. it gives judges a fig leaf to abuse their power simply because they think government policies should be different. If they want to set public policy then they should run for the legislature.  It is apparent that you think that it is just fine for the federal courts to have absolute and unfettered power over everything. You obviously believe that it is okay for the courts reject the limits of power contained within the constitution itself. it is dangerous. Lawyers are not even the most ethical or moral group of people that there are. Why, in your warped mind, do you think they should have such power? It is people like you, due to your utter ignorance, that have created a danger to our freedom.
"GRAND RAPIDS — In a packed 650-seat auditorium, a House panel today approved a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as only the union of one man and one woman."
And:
"'Many of the woes that we have and we experience...are because of the breakdown of the family unit,"' said Rep. Dan Severson, R-Sauk Rapids, chief sponsor of the House measure. He said the amendment would help avoid that breakdown.
Hope Dan is on his first, and only marriage. Preaching about the "family unit" is often done by people on their second or third spouse.
Dan, what if the mother has identical twinsin the womb? Are they, all three, considered "Different Human Beings", or are two of them considered to be "Identical"? (Seriously, just asking.)
They are "identical" in looks only. Although they have the same DNA, they have different phenotypes, meaning that the same DNA is expressed in different ways. They still have different brains controlling their thoughts, movement and such as well as having different DNA from the mother.
Second, there is nothing constructive that can be achieved on the topic.
Sure there is. Shutting someone off like that only creates disdain for what you have to say. Through open discussion, we all can learn. I still disagree with abortion, but it is nice to know what they are thinking and we are not always correct. Listen to all sides and then make up your own mind.
So again I ask, what type of solutions are there to stop all this.
Didn't you answer that when you said, "however, women are doing what they feel is responsible if they can not care for a child because abortion is a legal option!"?
Why is it that if someone kills a pregnant woman they are charged with two murders but it is legal for a woman to abort a baby. In a recent case in Minnesota the woman who was murdered was discovered to be five weeks pregnant, so the man who killed her is being charged with two murders. Apparently the law considers that baby to be "human".
"Why is it that if someone kills a pregnant woman they are charged with two murders but it is legal for a woman to abort a baby."
Seems like a fair question. I don't know that there is a an easy answer for it. I don't know that anyone who posts here has enough legal background and/or enough objectivity to supply an answer based on legality and not their own personal feelings. .
One cannot automatically assume that a fetus in the womb of a murder victim was going to be carried to term. But maybe that's what the law is based on. I imagine there's some agenda driven politics as well.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Mar 20, 2005 at 06:59am.]
Griswold was an abuse of power. It totally ignored the 10th amendment. The Griswold decision's purpose was to change the law as to who should or should not have contraceptive, a policy decision that has nothing to do with rights.
And this from someone who would describe himself as a conservative. Conservatives keep talking about getting government off people's backs, but apparently believe it's OK for the government to govern peoples' sex lives. The Connecticut law did not say "who should or should not have contraceptive [sic]," it said that no one should. If that's not an abuse of government power, what is?
Read Black's dissent and enlighten yourself.
It was a dissent, which means that his opinion was not convincing to a majority of his colleagues. The decision was 7-2. I recommend you read not only Douglas's majority opinion but also Goldberg's concurrence on the meaning of the Ninth Amendment.
Intersting trivia re: Griswold -- the Connecticut law was written by P.T. Barnum.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Mar 21, 2005 at 11:24pm.]
I think the Republicans are in all-out assault on the Courts. They have the House, Senate, Executive Branch, and they're just pissed as hell they can't get the Courts in line, NOW.
You hear them grumbling about the Supreme Court all the time. To the point that I've heard some say that Congress should have veto power over Supreme Court decisions.
This whole Schiavo thing has been interesting to watch. Can't say I have much of an opinion one way or another, which is odd. Maybe that underscores the idea that this is a private matter that found its way into the media and ended up in the hands of of lawyers and grandstanding politicians.
How could that happen in Florida?
[Edited 6 times. Most recently by on Mar 22, 2005 at 05:51am.]
And this from someone who would describe himself as a conservative. Conservatives keep talking about getting government off people's backs, but apparently believe it's OK for the government to govern peoples' sex lives. There is a difference between state and federal governments, although people like you refuse to recognize it. The constitution doesn't address contraceptives so it was a matter for the state to decide.   The Connecticut law did not say "who should or should not have contraceptive [sic]," it said that no one should. If that's not an abuse of government power, what is? You obviously don't understand what abuse of power is. It isn't an abuse of power as apparently that is what the people of Conneticut wanted. The people could vote and apparently they had no problem with its legislators enacting a law prohibiting contraceptive use.
It was a dissent, which means that his opinion was not convincing to a majority of his colleagues. It means there were enough justices that didn't give a damn about the Constitution. It happens justices are people. The liberals on the Court never give a damn about what the Constitution says they give a damn about what they want it to say. The decision was 7-2. I recommend youread not only Douglas's majority opinion but also Goldberg's concurrence on the meaning of the Ninth Amendment. they usurped power they didn't have. end of story.
People's rights, in life and death, are alwaysrepresented (if they are smart) by good lawyers, thankfully.... In this case, hired, quite legally
by the spouse
of the person who is dying.
Again, she wouldn't be dying if they were not starving her. The husband in this case, is the person that
Saint-Tom Delay , is publicly crucifying for exercising those rights In any moral society there is no "right" for a spouse to make such a decision. Ms. Schiavo could have made a living will. She chose not to. The only logical conclusion is she didn't want to be starved to death.
jethro, would you care to expound upon the Tenth Amendment and the law just passed to move the case of Terri Schiavo from the state to the federal courts?
How about the Texas "futile care" law which allows a hospital to decide when the plug is pulled, even if the family wishes otherwise?
-- Requiring sexual harassment and cultural sensitivity training for the Vulcan Krewe, King Boreas, the Queen of the Snows and the other Winter Carnival legend characters.
Do they get to wear their get-ups to the sessions?
-- Prohibiting alcohol consumption by the Royal Family or Vulcans when they are in costume, except for invitation-only official receptions or banquets held at the end of the day's appearances. Current rules give the fire king discretion to allow drinking.
jethro, would you care to expound upon the Tenth Amendment and the law just passed to move the case of Terri Schiavo from the state to the federal courts?
It is called the right not to be deprived of life without due process of law. Those words are written in the fifth and fourteenth amendments. I am not surprised you overlooked  them since you are always looking for things that aren't there.
How about the Texas "futile care" law which allows a hospital to decide when the plug is pulled, even if the family wishes otherwise? I would say there is a lack of due process.
He can't, intelligently, so he just calls people names and impunes the husband's character
 just like his Champion, Tom Delay.
I did but I am not surprised that you wouldn't think so. It takes the ability to comprehend the written word. Something you appear to lack. . Legal and Morally acceptable documents, which are recognized in every one of our 50 "immoral" states as Legal... Yet, some families still try to usurp their power, by claiming all kinds of stupid shit, as in "Starving Her To Death"... which anothercourt said was bullshit, just last night.
The fact remains that she would not be dying if they were not starving her. I am sorry that you don't like facts. It is a problem that permeates your "thinking."
Isn't it amazing how many courts, from local to federal, have all agreed that the Family of Ms. Schiavo has no legal legs to stand on in this matter, yet they continue to waste time and money because they just cannot let go of their daughter, so they are USING all of the rest of us in this now National, political game of life and death.
I have come to the conclusion that the legal profession is probably filled with more immoral souls than any other. It isterrible for them, but it's becoming a totally sick-excercise in futility
for the rest of us now as well, and nothing will change that, until she(Schiavo) finally lets go of life.
You mean until she is killed. Then her parents and the people who actually believe their political effort is righteous? THEY will start blaming/suing people, of course ...and Jethro and others like him, will blame Liberals, more than anyone!!! Your attitude shows just why people like you will be blamed. You seem to be filled with glee at the prospect of her death. Â
But this isn't the only National Debate that GDubbya is now losing, and so badly.
You are mistaken, as is your m.o., if you think Bush is losing this debate.Â
The simple fact remains, that the perrenial 10-25%of people in this country who believe as Jethro does , are people that the rest of us have to watch and be wary of, continually, lest they actually take control of this Nation and throw us all into another Civil War, as they somehow managed to do in the mid-1800's.
Your numbers are way off. Any civil war that will occur will be due the lack of a conscious by your heros. That war cost us all a lot of Blood, and in the end was not a cause for the South to support anyway... Only hundreds of thousands of corpses seemed to teach the rest of us, that simple lesson... That the "Old South" held no cultural or " moral" valuesto this Nation of Equal Democracy, For All.
This poor woman will have to continue to be humiliated by the Johnny-Come-Lately politicos who have made her into a Media-Â Farce . THEY will carry the burden of her life OR (impending, for years) death now, one way or the other.
Why do you revel in the thought that Ms. Schiavo is going to die? is it simply because Bush has taken a position on the matter?
Why do you keep saying that Terri Schiavo's death is something we "revel in," jethro? Can't you disagree with someone, even about profound questions, without thinking that they are automatically evil because they disagree with you?
If it weren't for all you lefties listening to Rush, he probably would have been off the air a long time ago.
My view of Terri: If you want her to die, why not just put a bullet to her head and get it over with rather than making her suffer through a long dragged out starvation/dehydration? You would do that much for a horse with a broken leg. Instead, kids who try to bring her water are arrested for their good samaritan acts. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050323/ids_photos_ts/r4209066064.jpg
Like it or not, she is a living adult woman. She does seem to smile at loved ones as well.
"My view of Terri: If you want her to die, why not just put a bullet to her head and get it over with rather than making her suffer through a long dragged out starvation/dehydration? "
What do you know about the people involved in this? Do you think their motivation is that they're just sick and tired of this woman and they want her gone? From the judges, on down to the husband?
This seems to me a difficult decision from both sides. But it's polarized the country by people with agendas. You don't help your case or credibility with the hyperbole.
"Instead, kids who try to bring her water are arrested "
Another kid, Down By Law. He'll grow up with a healthy respect of police and courts. Thanks to his parents, probably.
It contains a form of a state recognized living will. If the attending physician decides that treatment is futile for you and your family disagrees, there is a board of appeals that your family can request have a look at your case. If the board agrees with the attending physician, your family has a period of time to find another place for you. The state is even required by this law to provide you with a registry of health care providers and referral groups that are willing to take someone in your position or to help you find a place that will.
In any of the above cases, the law is specific in saying it "does not include authorization to withhold medical interventions or therapies considered necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain or to provide water or nutrition."
You don't help your case or credibility with the hyperbole.
So wanting it over with as quickly and painlessly as possible is hyperbole? Why make her suffer through the starvation and dehydration process for possibly weeks? All I am saying is get it over with if that is what has been decided.
Another kid, Down By Law.
Yeah, take out all them little bastards. What ever happened to fight the power and all that other crap you used to spew?
who told her husband that if she was ever in such a position, she would not want to be kept alive.
You were there and heard this? Why didn't you offer to be a witness in court?
I'm pretty secure in my belief that she didn't tell him "show the entire country video of me while I'm a vegetable and then show it to all the politicians in Washington and let them decide what to do about it" The way the media and politicians have invaded one of the most difficult and private of any decisions a family will have to make is obcene.
Why didn't you offer to be a witness in court?
which court was that? the one who ruled in favor of her husband or the one who ruled in faver of her husband?
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by molegrass on Mar 23, 2005 at 10:19pm.]
I'm pretty secure in my belief that she didn't tell him "show the entire country video of me while I'm a vegetable and then show it to all the politicians in Washington and let them decide what to do about it"
True, but she could have said, "show them this living will I just signed and then do not give me anything to eat or drink."
The way the media and politicians have invaded one of the most difficult and private of any decisions a family will have to make is obcene.
What is obscene is how the left of this country do their best to kill a person irregardless of whether they are born or not.Â
She is not attached to anyone, which was one of your prerequisites. So what happened to this born person's right to life? Why is it wrong to give her food and water?
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Mar 23, 2005 at 10:32pm.]
Any of them. It is irrelevant though since I doubt that your they said/he said/she said would have stood up in court.
uh... bullshit...
lawyers for the House of Representatives filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court,asking the justices to intervene in the case. Justice Anthony Kennedyhas jurisdiction over emergency appeals in cases arising in the 11th U.S. Circuit,where Schiavo's case is being played out. That appeal was later deniedwithout comment. The court made the decisionat 11:05 p.m. after the justices conferred by telephone. There was no breakdown of the vote... Lower courts have ruledthat she is in a "persistent vegetative state."... Over the years, courts have sided with her husbandin more than a dozen cases... There had been an attempt by the Government Reform Committee of the U.S. House to block the removal of Terri's feeding tube, which Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer had orderedearlier Friday. That order was stayed briefly when Greer could not be found to participate in a conference call with attorneys... Greer reinstated his orderto have the tube removed, saying it should be done "forthwith."... the deputy clerk at the Florida Supreme Courtsaid a petition for relief filed there by the House was denied...Gov. Jeb Bush pushed a law through the Florida Legislature that authorized the woman's feedings to resume, six days after a court stopped them.The Florida Supreme Courtlater ruled the law unconstitutional.
"Yeah, take out all them little bastards. What ever happened to fight the power and all that other crap you used to spew?"
I'm not certain what crap you're referring to (maybe you don't know either) but I don't think I spewed it for the consumption of 12-year-olds. That's about how old that kid looks.
Why do you keep saying that Terri Schiavo's death is something we "revel in," jethro? Because many of your ilk are doing just that.Can't you disagree with someone, even about profound questions, without thinking that they are automatically evil because they disagree with you? Sure when it isn't about killing an innocent human being by starvation.
This seems to me a difficult decision from both sides. It isn't difficult at all. Only someone that is morally challenged would believe that. Maybe Ms. Schiavo would want to die in the situation she is in but we don't know that. 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. Â
 On Monday night, Ralph Nader was substituting as left-wing host on CNN's "Crossfire" and seemed uncomfortable grilling Republican Rep. David Dreier of California. After the show, the old reformer noted to me that it was illegal to starve a dog to death but it was being done to Terri Schiavo. This is an issue truly transcending normal political boundaries.
The problem is that although your spouse likely knows you best, there is no guarantee he will not confuse his wishes with yours. Terri's spouse presents complications. He has a girlfriend, and has two kids with her. He clearly wants to marry again. And a living Terri stands in the way.
    Now, all of this may be irrelevant in his mind. He may actually be acting entirely based on his understanding of his wife's wishes. And as she left nothing behind, the courts have been forced to conclude based on his testimony that she would prefer to be dead.
    That is why this is a terrible case. The general rule of spousal supremacy leads you here to a thoroughly repulsive conclusion.
.....however, women are doing what they feel is responsible if they can not care for a child because abortion is a legal option! No, they are only getting rid of a "problem" they don't want to deal with.So again I ask, what type of solutions are there to stop all this. We educate children from 6th grade about safe sex. I stated the issue with adoption. What can we do to chane society's view as a whole? Society's view as a whole is that abortion is wrong. Even many supporters of legalized abortion say it is "wrong for them." Abortion is wrong-period.
Jethro speaks the truth here. He does not debate, he pontificates.
Straw man. The Bill of Rights does not list the rights granted to the people by the government, it limits the power of government. Many of the founding fathers, particularly the Federalists so beloved of conservatives, were concerned that enumerating certain rights would lead to people making the argument that jethro makes here, which is why the Ninth Amendment was added.
The Ninth specifically describes and prohibits what jethro is trying to do here.
The right of privacy is implicit in the first, third, fourth and fifth amendments, the Court found in Griswold v. Connecticut, which was the basis for their so finding in Roe v. Wade.
[Edited by on Mar 18, 2005 at 09:14am.]
It's attached, a part of the mother.
Straw man. Spoken like a man that does not know a damn thing about the constitution. The Bill of Rights does not list the rights granted to the people by the government, it limits the power of government. It limits the power of the FEDERAL government. Read the 10th Amendment.Many of the founding fathers, particularly the Federalists so beloved of conservatives, were concerned that enumerating certain rights would lead to people making the argument that jethro makes here, which is why the Ninth Amendment was added.
The 9th Amendment refers to rights retained by the people  It says nothing about the federal government deciding what those rights are. Again read the 10th Amendment.
The Ninth specifically describes and prohibits what jethro is trying to dohere. B.S. You are so damn ignorant. You do not understand the plain meaning of what is
written. You pervert everything you read. Perversion is at the core of your being.
The right of privacy is implicit in the first, third, fourth and fifth amendments, the Court found in Griswold v. Connecticut,which was the basis for their so finding in Roe v. Wade.Â
Griswold was an abuse of power. It totally ignored the 10th amendment.The Griswold decision's purpose was to change the law as to who should or should not have contraceptive, a policy decision that has nothing to do with rights.
Read Black's dissent and enlighten
yourself. I also suggest you read Men in Black. It should set even someone so full of
bull
shit like you straight. The 10th amendment provides that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to determine what people's rights are. The only thing mentioned in the bill of rights that remotely regards privacy is the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.Â
Reasonable
searches and seizures are fine. So much for a blanket right to privacy. It is isn't there. It is a figment of warped imaginations. it gives judges a fig leaf to abuse their power simply because they think government policies should be different. If they want to set public policy then they should run for the legislature.  It is apparent that you think that it is just fine for the federal courts to have absolute and unfettered power over everything. You obviously believe that it is okay for the courts reject the limits of power contained within the constitution itself. it is dangerous. Lawyers are not even the most ethical or moral group of people that there are. Why, in your warped mind, do you think they should have such power? It is people like you, due to your utter ignorance, that have created a danger to our freedom.
So, bodine... you are saying that the feds laws overruling the legalizing of medical marijuana in several states is unconstitutional?
Minnesota's on the Road to Redemption, I guess
"GRAND RAPIDS — In a packed 650-seat auditorium, a House panel today approved a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as only the union of one man and one woman."
And:
"'Many of the woes that we have and we experience...are because of the breakdown of the family unit,"' said Rep. Dan Severson, R-Sauk Rapids, chief sponsor of the House measure. He said the amendment would help avoid that breakdown.
Hope Dan is on his first, and only marriage. Preaching about the "family unit" is often done by people on their second or third spouse.
How does preventing homosexuals from marrying prevent the breakdown of hetrosexual marriages?
There is absolutely no logic in that idea whatsoever.
"well honey, I love you. but the gay couple across the street just got hitched and now we have to file for divorce. damn those gays!"
[Edited by molegrass on Mar 18, 2005 at 05:05pm.]
Yeah, that's what he said, mr. out of context.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
Dan, what if the mother has identical twinsin the womb? Are they, all three, considered "Different Human Beings", or are two of them considered to be "Identical"? (Seriously, just asking.)
They are "identical" in looks only. Although they have the same DNA, they have different phenotypes, meaning that the same DNA is expressed in different ways. They still have different brains controlling their thoughts, movement and such as well as having different DNA from the mother.
Second, there is nothing constructive that can be achieved on the topic.
Sure there is. Shutting someone off like that only creates disdain for what you have to say. Through open discussion, we all can learn. I still disagree with abortion, but it is nice to know what they are thinking and we are not always correct. Listen to all sides and then make up your own mind.
So again I ask, what type of solutions are there to stop all this.
Didn't you answer that when you said, "however, women are doing what they feel is responsible if they can not care for a child because abortion is a legal option!"?
I can't think of another person alive today that speaks more VOLUMNS about Conservatism,
than you do
What speaks volumes is that you left out all the leftist who also accepted trips from KORUSEC only to center on DeLay.
Why is it that if someone kills a pregnant woman they are charged with two murders but it is legal for a woman to abort a baby. In a recent case in Minnesota the woman who was murdered was discovered to be five weeks pregnant, so the man who killed her is being charged with two murders. Apparently the law considers that baby to be "human".
[Edited by on Mar 19, 2005 at 03:02pm.]
Because our laws are notoriously hypocritical.
O.K. Jethro.
"Why is it that if someone kills a pregnant woman they are charged with two murders but it is legal for a woman to abort a baby."
Seems like a fair question. I don't know that there is a an easy answer for it. I don't know that anyone who posts here has enough legal background and/or enough objectivity to supply an answer based on legality and not their own personal feelings. .
One cannot automatically assume that a fetus in the womb of a murder victim was going to be carried to term. But maybe that's what the law is based on. I imagine there's some agenda driven politics as well.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Mar 20, 2005 at 06:59am.]
jethro bodine 3/18/05 10:13am
And this from someone who would describe himself as a conservative. Conservatives keep talking about getting government off people's backs, but apparently believe it's OK for the government to govern peoples' sex lives. The Connecticut law did not say "who should or should not have contraceptive [sic]," it said that no one should. If that's not an abuse of government power, what is?
It was a dissent, which means that his opinion was not convincing to a majority of his colleagues. The decision was 7-2. I recommend you read not only Douglas's majority opinion but also Goldberg's concurrence on the meaning of the Ninth Amendment.
Intersting trivia re: Griswold -- the Connecticut law was written by P.T. Barnum.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Mar 21, 2005 at 11:24pm.]
I think the Republicans are in all-out assault on the Courts. They have the House, Senate, Executive Branch, and they're just pissed as hell they can't get the Courts in line, NOW.
You hear them grumbling about the Supreme Court all the time. To the point that I've heard some say that Congress should have veto power over Supreme Court decisions.
Is there any end to how much power they want?
This whole Schiavo thing has been interesting to watch. Can't say I have much of an opinion one way or another, which is odd. Maybe that underscores the idea that this is a private matter that found its way into the media and ended up in the hands of of lawyers and grandstanding politicians.
How could that happen in Florida?
[Edited 6 times. Most recently by on Mar 22, 2005 at 05:51am.]
That's one form of birth control . . .
And this from someone who would describe himself as a conservative. Conservatives keep talking about getting government off people's backs, but apparently believe it's OK for the government to govern peoples' sex lives. There is a difference between state and federal governments, although people like you refuse to recognize it. The constitution doesn't address contraceptives so it was a matter for the state to decide.   The Connecticut law did not say "who should or should not have contraceptive [sic]," it said that no one should. If that's not an abuse of government power, what is? You obviously don't understand what abuse of power is. It isn't an abuse of power as apparently that is what the people of Conneticut wanted. The people could vote and apparently they had no problem with its legislators enacting a law prohibiting contraceptive use.
It was a dissent, which means that his opinion was not convincing to a majority of his colleagues. It means there were enough justices that didn't give a damn about the Constitution. It happens justices are people. The liberals on the Court never give a damn about what the Constitution says they give a damn about what they want it to say. The decision was 7-2. I recommend youread not only Douglas's majority opinion but also Goldberg's concurrence on the meaning of the Ninth Amendment. they usurped power they didn't have. end of story.
And please, don't tell me she is being "Starved To Death", when in fact she is finally being allowed to die, as she surely would have
years ago
had not "Heroic Measures" been used to keep her alive, and as a political football.
She wouldn't be dying if they were not starving her. You lack of logic is incredible.
This should
NOT
be a National Debate.
It sure as hell should be.
People's rights, in life and death, are alwaysrepresented
(if they are smart)
by good lawyers, thankfully.... In this case, hired,
quite legally
by the
spouse
of the person who is dying.
Again, she wouldn't be dying if they were not starving her.
The husband in this case, is the person that
Saint-Tom Delay
, is
publicly crucifying
for exercising those rights In any moral society there is no "right" for a spouse to make such a decision. Ms. Schiavo could have made a living will. She chose not to. The only logical conclusion is she didn't want to be starved to death.
jethro, would you care to expound upon the Tenth Amendment and the law just passed to move the case of Terri Schiavo from the state to the federal courts?
How about the Texas "futile care" law which allows a hospital to decide when the plug is pulled, even if the family wishes otherwise?
Vulcan dorks called on carpet
-- Requiring sexual harassment and cultural sensitivity training for the Vulcan Krewe, King Boreas, the Queen of the Snows and the other Winter Carnival legend characters.
Do they get to wear their get-ups to the sessions?
-- Prohibiting alcohol consumption by the Royal Family or Vulcans when they are in costume, except for invitation-only official receptions or banquets held at the end of the day's appearances. Current rules give the fire king discretion to allow drinking.
I bet that's some bitter medicine to take.
[Edited by on Mar 23, 2005 at 05:59am.]
jethro, would you care to expound upon the Tenth Amendment and the law just passed to move the case of Terri Schiavo from the state to the federal courts?
It is called the right not to be deprived of life without due process of law. Those words are written in the fifth and fourteenth amendments. I am not surprised you overlooked  them since you are always looking for things that aren't there.
How about the Texas "futile care" law which allows a hospital to decide when the plug is pulled, even if the family wishes otherwise? I would say there is a lack of due process.
That's the one Bush made law, isn't it?
He can't, intelligently, so he just calls people names and impunes the
husband's character
 just like his Champion, Tom Delay.
I did but I am not surprised that you wouldn't think so. It takes the ability to comprehend the written word. Something you appear to lack.
. Legal and Morally acceptable documents, which are recognized in every one of our 50 "immoral" states as Legal... Yet, some families still try to usurp their power, by claiming all kinds of stupid shit, as in "Starving Her To Death"... which anothercourt said was bullshit, just last night.
The fact remains that she would not be dying if they were not starving her. I am sorry that you don't like facts. It is a problem that permeates your "thinking."
Isn't it amazing how many courts, from local to federal, have all agreed that the Family of Ms. Schiavo has no legal legs to stand on in this matter, yet they continue to waste time and money because they just cannot let go of their daughter, so they are USING all of the rest of us in this now National, political game of life and death.
I have come to the conclusion that the legal profession is probably filled with more immoral souls than any other.Â
It isterrible for them, but it's becoming a totally sick-excercise in
futility
for the rest of us now as well, and nothing will change that, until she(Schiavo) finally lets go of life.
You mean until she is killed.
Then her parents and the people who actually believe their
political effort
is righteous? THEY will start blaming/suing people,
of course
...and Jethro and others like him, will blame Liberals, more than anyone!!! Your attitude shows just why people like you will be blamed. You seem to be filled with glee at the prospect of her death. Â
But this isn't the only National Debate that GDubbya is now losing, and so badly.
You are mistaken, as is your m.o., if you think Bush is losing this debate.Â
The simple fact remains, that the perrenial 10-25%of people in this country who believe
as
Jethro
does
, are people that the rest of us have to watch and be wary of, continually, lest they actually take control of this Nation and throw us all into another Civil War, as they somehow managed to do in the mid-1800's.
Your numbers are way off. Any civil war that will occur will be due the lack of a conscious by your heros. That war cost us all a lot of Blood, and in the end was not a cause for the South to support anyway... Only hundreds of thousands of corpses seemed to teach the rest of us, that simple lesson... That the "Old South" held no cultural or "
moral" valuesto this Nation of Equal Democracy, For All.
Your poor grasp of history is amazing.
[Edited by on Mar 23, 2005 at 11:01am.]
This poor woman will have to continue to be humiliated by the Johnny-Come-Lately politicos who have made her into a Media-Â
Farce
. THEY will carry the burden of her life OR (impending, for years) death now, one way or the other.
Why do you revel in the thought that Ms. Schiavo is going to die? is it simply because Bush has taken a position on the matter?
Why do you keep saying that Terri Schiavo's death is something we "revel in," jethro? Can't you disagree with someone, even about profound questions, without thinking that they are automatically evil because they disagree with you?
"Why do you keep saying that Terri Schiavo's death is something we "revel in," jethro? "
Because I heard Rush Limbaugh say it.
jethro's repeating it like a good little robot.
MEGAdittoes, Rush! I never miss your show!
If it weren't for all you lefties listening to Rush, he probably would have been off the air a long time ago.
My view of Terri: If you want her to die, why not just put a bullet to her head and get it over with rather than making her suffer through a long dragged out starvation/dehydration? You would do that much for a horse with a broken leg. Instead, kids who try to bring her water are arrested for their good samaritan acts. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050323/ids_photos_ts/r4209066064.jpg
Like it or not, she is a living adult woman. She does seem to smile at loved ones as well.
"If it weren't for all you lefties listening to Rush, he probably would have been off the air a long time ago."
Doubtful. If he's ever convicted on those charges of doctor shopping, he'd find a way to broadcast from the slammer.
[Edited by on Mar 23, 2005 at 09:33pm.]
"My view of Terri: If you want her to die, why not just put a bullet to her head and get it over with rather than making her suffer through a long dragged out starvation/dehydration? "
What do you know about the people involved in this? Do you think their motivation is that they're just sick and tired of this woman and they want her gone? From the judges, on down to the husband?
This seems to me a difficult decision from both sides. But it's polarized the country by people with agendas. You don't help your case or credibility with the hyperbole.
"Instead, kids who try to bring her water are arrested "
Another kid, Down By Law. He'll grow up with a healthy respect of police and courts. Thanks to his parents, probably.
[Edited by on Mar 23, 2005 at 09:59pm.]
who told her husband that if she was ever in such a position, she would not want to be kept alive.
How about the Texas "futile care" law which allows a hospital to decide when the plug is pulled, even if the family wishes otherwise?
Here is that law for you: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htm
It contains a form of a state recognized living will. If the attending physician decides that treatment is futile for you and your family disagrees, there is a board of appeals that your family can request have a look at your case. If the board agrees with the attending physician, your family has a period of time to find another place for you. The state is even required by this law to provide you with a registry of health care providers and referral groups that are willing to take someone in your position or to help you find a place that will.
In any of the above cases, the law is specific in saying it "does not include authorization to withhold medical interventions or therapies considered necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain or to provide water or nutrition."
You don't help your case or credibility with the hyperbole.
So wanting it over with as quickly and painlessly as possible is hyperbole? Why make her suffer through the starvation and dehydration process for possibly weeks? All I am saying is get it over with if that is what has been decided.
Another kid, Down By Law.
Yeah, take out all them little bastards. What ever happened to fight the power and all that other crap you used to spew?
who told her husband that if she was ever in such a position, she would not want to be kept alive.
You were there and heard this? Why didn't you offer to be a witness in court?
[Edited by on Mar 23, 2005 at 10:12pm.]
No, her her husband was.
I'm pretty secure in my belief that she didn't tell him "show the entire country video of me while I'm a vegetable and then show it to all the politicians in Washington and let them decide what to do about it" The way the media and politicians have invaded one of the most difficult and private of any decisions a family will have to make is obcene.
which court was that? the one who ruled in favor of her husband or the one who ruled in faver of her husband?
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by molegrass on Mar 23, 2005 at 10:19pm.]
No, her her husband was.
I see, so it is a case of you heard that someone said that he said that she said it.
which court was that?
Any of them. It is irrelevant though since I doubt that your they said/he said/she said would have stood up in court.
I'm pretty secure in my belief that she didn't tell him "show the entire country video of me while I'm a vegetable and then show it to all the politicians in Washington and let them decide what to do about it"
True, but she could have said, "show them this living will I just signed and then do not give me anything to eat or drink."
[Edited by on Mar 23, 2005 at 10:24pm.]
The way the media and politicians have invaded one of the most difficult and private of any decisions a family will have to make is obcene.
What is obscene is how the left of this country do their best to kill a person irregardless of whether they are born or not.Â
She is not attached to anyone, which was one of your prerequisites. So what happened to this born person's right to life? Why is it wrong to give her food and water?
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Mar 23, 2005 at 10:32pm.]
It was not what she wanted.
Why is it right to force someone to stay alive when they have lost anything that resembles a quality life?
uh... bullshit...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/18/schiavo.brain-damaged/
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by molegrass on Mar 23, 2005 at 11:57pm.]
"Yeah, take out all them little bastards. What ever happened to fight the power and all that other crap you used to spew?"
I'm not certain what crap you're referring to (maybe you don't know either) but I don't think I spewed it for the consumption of 12-year-olds. That's about how old that kid looks.
Why do you keep saying that Terri Schiavo's death is something we "revel in," jethro? Because many of your ilk are doing just that.Can't you disagree with someone, even about profound questions, without thinking that they are automatically evil because they disagree with you? Sure when it isn't about killing an innocent human being by starvation.
jethro's repeating it like a good little robot.
You should no better than that, asshole.
This seems to me a difficult decision from both sides. It isn't difficult at all. Only someone that is morally challenged would believe that. Maybe Ms. Schiavo would want to die in the situation she is in but we don't know that. 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. Â
The way the media and politicians have invaded one of the most difficult and private of any decisions a family will have to make is obcene.
I suppose we should amend the constituion to take out the phrases about not depriving anyone without due process of law
.
 On Monday night, Ralph Nader was substituting as left-wing host on CNN's "Crossfire" and seemed uncomfortable grilling Republican Rep. David Dreier of California. After the show, the old reformer noted to me that it was illegal to starve a dog to death but it was being done to Terri Schiavo. This is an issue truly transcending normal political boundaries.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20050324.shtml
The problem is that although your spouse likely knows you best, there is no guarantee he will not confuse his wishes with yours. Terri's spouse presents complications. He has a girlfriend, and has two kids with her. He clearly wants to marry again. And a living Terri stands in the way.
    Now, all of this may be irrelevant in his mind. He may actually be acting entirely based on his understanding of his wife's wishes. And as she left nothing behind, the courts have been forced to conclude based on his testimony that she would prefer to be dead.
    That is why this is a terrible case. The general rule of spousal supremacy leads you here to a thoroughly repulsive conclusion.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20050323.shtml