George W., Jeb, Congress: Guilty of Crimes of Compassion?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Adam's Apple, Mar 30, 2005.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Crimes of Compassion
    By Kathleen Parker, The Orlando Sentinel
    March 27, 2005

    You can call Congress' intervention in the Schiavo case political maneuvering if you please. Strong arguments can be made without much strain. But we might also see these events as trying to negotiate a deeply divisive and explicitly life-altering issue. Whatever one's verdict, we've all learned something true from the case. We're out of our league when we try to play God.

    We might also conclude that what we've witnessed wasn't mere politics, but a clash of worldviews. That clash posed as a question that will haunt our debate for some time: Whose life is it anyway?

    Is life strictly one's own to be embraced or disposed of as circumstances, convenience or pride dictate? And in the absence of autonomous life -- whether that of a fetus or a disabled person -- something to be disposed of by others?

    Or is life a gift from the divine, as many faiths maintain? And how do we create laws to protect life if we cannot even agree on a definition of what life is?

    I do not pretend to have the answers, but the debate seems worthy of our attention, even if politicians sometimes benefit.

    For full article
    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edparker27032705mar27,1,6759543.c
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I can agree with that. I think Jeb was only trying to use powers that he thought were available to him, no problem there.

    GW I think too was driven by compassion, totally understandable and correct from his religious point of view. Problem for me though is that as the practical leader of the GOP he encouraged action by Congressional leaders that overstep onto Florida's state's rights. That was my problem with this case.
     
  3. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Congress certainly would be in their rights and responsibilities to say "no" to the president. They have no problem whatsoever sayinn no to him on a multitude of other requeests he has made. If they had refused, federal intervention would have ended there. Apparently 2 of the 3 branches of government felt thye had the right AND obligation to ask the judicial branch to take a closer look. They certainly didn't demand that the judges change any decisions.
     
  4. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    When the election was tallied it was considered among many things that got W elected to be morals and the country's specific fears or reafirmation that they wanted morality back in government. I think we can agree on that.
    What I find most hypocritical is now that Republicans, some Democrats, and the President actually put their asses on the line in this case to make a stand for life and morality it is many in the religious sect that are now castigating them for doing so, and stupidly giving the anti christian left more amunition and solace to further degrade human life and religious people in general.

    So maybe we as a country don't really deserve a moral government, a moral President, and Congress?????
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

    Morality yes, overstepping the Constitution, no. Especially the argument that is the best one for overturning Roe.
     
  6. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    I do understand your point, but Im still not clear on exactly how this was overstepping the Constitution, and I have yet to hear one expert on this actually say that's what happened? I hear them say it was an unusual step but never an unconstitutional one. Is this clear and cut or is it more a semantics debate???
     
  7. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    How an innocent citizen's life can even be "up for debate" is taking a ride down the slippery slope to a culture of death which this idiotic (or deliberate?) media person is doing with her pretension to "not have the answers".

    The answer is very clearly stated in the Constitution where it says every citizen has a right to life.
     
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

    Whether or not they managed to 'get around' the constitutionality issue, I am unsure. From my understanding they were not asking the Feds to look at 'facts,' but rather the 'totality of the case' in a fresh perspective, though they botched the wording and the Fed Judiciary did say, 'due process was received.' It still was an attempted end run against a state decision on a state matter. They didn't like the outcome, so they wanted a new game at a higher level. I didn't like the outcome either, but felt the fight needed to be made to the FL legislature-whether for new law, something that would allow Jeb or DCFS, whatever to intervene-on the state level. Instead everyone was fighting for camera time, Washington is where all the cameras are.

    Kind of like you lose the regionals and say, too bad I want the nationals. No way.

    I hope the 11th gives some relief, as the cat is already out of the bad. I hope if they do, she isn't too far gone to do some good. I just think the GOP is going to have to acknowledge that they messed up, especially if ROE review becomes possible.
     
  9. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    I do have to agree that Jeb never should have asked Greer's permission for the DCFS to just step in and take her which, I believe they had jurisdiction to do, and did not need Greer's permission. By Jeb doing that he backed himself into a corner leaving no recourse. It seems mistakes were made in key places that have let Terri and her family down. Very unfortunate!
     
  10. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    You're saying a woman is dying of thirst because "they botched the wording"?

    Isn't it is more the case of a judge thumbing his nose at the legislative and executive branches?
     

Share This Page