Dean: Schiavo Case to Be Used Against GOP

[5stringJeff]

Sorry to break my Schiavo-free discussion pledge, but this is ridiculous. First the Dems rail against the Schiavo case being used for political reasons - then they plan to use the Schiavo case for political reasons!!!

----------------
Dean: Schiavo Case to Be Used Against GOP
By SIOBHAN McDONOUGH, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who has accused congressional Republicans of "grandstanding" in the Terri Schiavo case, said his party will use it against the GOP in coming elections.

"This is going to be an issue in 2006, and its going to be an issue in 2008 because we're going to have an ad with a picture of (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay saying, 'Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?'" Dean said in West Hollywood, Calif.

Dean, answering questions at an Access Now for Gay and Lesbian Equality event on Friday, went on to say: "The issue is: Are we going to live in a theocracy where the highest powers tell us what to do? Or are we going to be allowed to consult our own high powers when we make very difficult decisions?'"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&e=4&u=/ap/20050418/ap_on_go_co/dean_schiavo

 

[Avatar4321]

Dean has the same probably as many other leading Democrats. He doesn't know when to shut up. I saw let him try to use the Schaivo case. It will turn into another wellstone memorial issue for them and fire up the Republican base. Or atleast most the base.

 

[theim]

Sorry to break my Schiavo-free discussion pledge, but this is ridiculous. First the Dems rail against the Schiavo case being used for political reasons - then they plan to use the Schiavo case for political reasons!!!

----------------
Dean: Schiavo Case to Be Used Against GOP
By SIOBHAN McDONOUGH, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who has accused congressional Republicans of "grandstanding" in the Terri Schiavo case, said his party will use it against the GOP in coming elections.

"This is going to be an issue in 2006, and its going to be an issue in 2008 because we're going to have an ad with a picture of (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay saying, 'Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?'" Dean said in West Hollywood, Calif.

Dean, answering questions at an Access Now for Gay and Lesbian Equality event on Friday, went on to say: "The issue is: Are we going to live in a theocracy where the highest powers tell us what to do? Or are we going to be allowed to consult our own high powers when we make very difficult decisions?'"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&e=4&u=/ap/20050418/ap_on_go_co/dean_schiavo

That's amusing. I just noticed his inclusion of "our own high powers". I would like to think he has acknowledged the faith of millions of Americans, but I just know he really means the courts, and their majority opinions which his entire party sees as Holy Writ, utterly infallible because judges, you know, are perfect human beings who never EVER make mistakes.

 

[Hobbit]

Wasn't this the same guy who said how appalling it was that the GOP was "using this case for political gain?"

 

[IControlThePast]

Sorry to break my Schiavo-free discussion pledge, but this is ridiculous. First the Dems rail against the Schiavo case being used for political reasons - then they plan to use the Schiavo case for political reasons!!!

----------------
Dean: Schiavo Case to Be Used Against GOP
By SIOBHAN McDONOUGH, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who has accused congressional Republicans of "grandstanding" in the Terri Schiavo case, said his party will use it against the GOP in coming elections.

"This is going to be an issue in 2006, and its going to be an issue in 2008 because we're going to have an ad with a picture of (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay saying, 'Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?'" Dean said in West Hollywood, Calif.

Dean, answering questions at an Access Now for Gay and Lesbian Equality event on Friday, went on to say: "The issue is: Are we going to live in a theocracy where the highest powers tell us what to do? Or are we going to be allowed to consult our own high powers when we make very difficult decisions?'"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&e=4&u=/ap/20050418/ap_on_go_co/dean_schiavo

Does that ad really mention the Shiavo case or just a level of intrusiveness (bigger government) one Republican is trying to achieve?

 

[musicman]

Sorry to break my Schiavo-free discussion pledge, but this is ridiculous. First the Dems rail against the Schiavo case being used for political reasons - then they plan to use the Schiavo case for political reasons!!!

----------------
Dean: Schiavo Case to Be Used Against GOP
By SIOBHAN McDONOUGH, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who has accused congressional Republicans of "grandstanding" in the Terri Schiavo case, said his party will use it against the GOP in coming elections.

It is axiomatic that we betray our secret hearts when we accuse.

Dean, answering questions at an Access Now for Gay and Lesbian Equality event on Friday, went on to say: "The issue is: Are we going to live in a theocracy where the highest powers tell us what to do? Or are we going to be allowed to consult our own high powers when we make very difficult decisions?'"

Hear us, O Hillary, in our hour of need.

 

[Nienna]

Article. III.
Section. 1.(US Constitution)
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.



or·dain ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôr-dn)
tr.v. or·dained, or·dain·ing, or·dains

To invest with ministerial or priestly authority; confer holy orders on.
To authorize as a rabbi.
To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact.
To prearrange unalterably; predestine: by fate ordained. See Synonyms at dictate.


Do you think Congress has power over the lower courts?

 

[dilloduck]

Article. III.
Section. 1.(US Constitution)
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.



or·dain ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôr-dn)
tr.v. or·dained, or·dain·ing, or·dains

To invest with ministerial or priestly authority; confer holy orders on.
To authorize as a rabbi.
To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact.
To prearrange unalterably; predestine: by fate ordained. See Synonyms at dictate.


Do you think Congress has power over the lower courts?

only to appoint judges

 

[Annie]

only to appoint judges

I thought the executive appointed and Congress was to advise and consent? Congress can also create new courts, though they are not given power over them.

Congress can pass new legislation or amendments if they don't think court rulings are correct.

 

[dilloduck]

I thought the executive appointed and Congress was to advise and consent? Congress can also create new courts, though they are not given power over them.

Congress can pass new legislation or amendments if they don't think court rulings are correct.

I stand corrected, thank you. Congress can pass a law but the courts rule if they are enforceable or not. After the selection process, the other 2 branches have very little authority over the judicial branch.

 

[Nienna]

only to appoint judges

I think it says "courts." The Congress can establish and reorganize any lower courts, the exception being the Supreme Court. (Ninth Circuit, anyone?)

 

[dilloduck]

I think it says "courts." The Congress can establish and reorganize any lower courts, the exception being the Supreme Court. (Ninth Circuit, anyone?)

Are you implying that Congress can abolish the 9th Circuit?

 

[Nienna]

www.landmarkcases/marbury/jefferson.com

"At the establishment of our Constitution, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous..."

Thomas Jefferson 1823

 

[Nienna]

Are you implying that Congress can abolish the 9th Circuit?

I prefer the term "reorganize."

 

[Annie]

I prefer the term "reorganize."

You come up with this from where? What did you think of FDR's court packing scheme and the public reaction?

 

[Avatar4321]

only to appoint judges

Congress doesn't appoint judges. The President appoints judges. Congress can create or destroy federal courts. Congress can give or take away jurisdiction. They have power over the court.

 

[Avatar4321]

Are you implying that Congress can abolish the 9th Circuit?

No implication necessary. Congress greated the 9th circuit. Congress could destroy it. More than likely though they would break it up.

 

[dilloduck]

Congress doesn't appoint judges. The President appoints judges. Congress can create or destroy federal courts. Congress can give or take away jurisdiction. They have power over the court.

So they could have simply taken away the courts jurisdiction in the Schiavo case?

 

[Nienna]

You come up with this from where? What did you think of FDR's court packing scheme and the public reaction?

That seems more akin to what the dems are doing in refusing to "consent" to the appointment of the president's nominees, the effect being to stack the courts in favor of a political stance. I think the public was correct in fdr's case.

I came up with this in the US COnstitution, Article 1, section 8, clause 9, which gives Congress the power to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, and Article 3, section 1, which says that Congress can ordain and establish inferior courts. I was referring to the court structure, not individual judges. This, Congress (not the president) has the power to rearrange (not necessarily to abolish, although if they could find a right to consentual sodomy in the Constitution, I don't think it's as far a stretch to turn "establish and ordain" into "abolish.")

 

[Annie]

That seems more akin to what the dems are doing in refusing to "consent" to the appointment of the president's nominees, the effect being to stack the courts in favor of a political stance. I think the public was correct in fdr's case.

I came up with this in the US COnstitution, Article 1, section 8, clause 9, which gives Congress the power to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, and Article 3, section 1, which says that Congress can ordain and establish inferior courts. I was referring to the court structure, not individual judges. This, Congress (not the president) has the power to rearrange (not necessarily to abolish, although if they could find a right to consentual sodomy in the Constitution, I don't think it's as far a stretch to turn "establish and ordain" into "abolish.")

As for the courts and Texas laws, the Texas legislature certainly could have tried alternative legislation, which is where their power really lies. Problem is, they knew this would go to SCOTUS, 4th Amendment. Someone calling the police because they are interested in your bedroom antics and the police act upon it, well what did you expect?