Dean: Schiavo Case to Be Used Against GOP

[dilloduck]

What was that?

I'd give a smilie hug mom but they're all to inappropriate LOL

 

[nakedemperor]

It seems to me there's a clear distinction between using how the Republicans handled the Terry Schiavo case-- jumping on it like flies on poop as a political tool to appeal to the conservative christian base-- and using how the Republicans handled the case.

Distinction being "using" Terri Schaivo herself and "using" how the GOP responded/reacted to the Schiavo case.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It seems to me there's a clear distinction between using how the Republicans handled the Terry Schiavo case-- jumping on it like flies on poop as a political tool to appeal to the conservative christian base-- and using how the Republicans handled the case.

Distinction being "using" Terri Schaivo herself and "using" how the GOP responded/reacted to the Schiavo case.

How about the distinctive "using" of Terri Shiavo by the Court and its thumbing its nose at the U.S. House summons? And how about the response/reaction of silence by the Democrats to this court-mandated murder including the silence of those that avocate non-torture?

 

[theim]

It seems to me there's a clear distinction between using how the Republicans handled the Terry Schiavo case-- jumping on it like flies on poop as a political tool to appeal to the conservative christian base-- and using how the Republicans handled the case.

Distinction being "using" Terri Schaivo herself and "using" how the GOP responded/reacted to the Schiavo case.

All I know is that if I'm ever in a coma and my wife shacks with her new boyfriend and suddenly recalls that I wanted to die and give her all my stuff, that I hope Congress will "use" me all they can.

 

[Annie]

Agreed.

My point in mentioning these things in conjunction with the Schiavo case is that it seems clear that her right to life (a federal right) was ignored. Since the case didn't go to the Supreme Court, Congress has some authority over the lower courts, and this authority ought to be utilized to reign in the oligarchical judiciary and try to prevent this from happening to other citizens.

Oligarchy?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Oligarchy?

Sounds like the perfect word to me.

 

[Annie]

Seems to me that many are wanting something other than our system of government. So what is it you all want to invent?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Seems to me that many are wanting something other than our system of government. So what is it you all want to invent?

The invention is coming in the form a judiciary that sees what it wants to in the constitution.

 

[Annie]

The invention is coming in the form a judiciary that sees what it wants to in the ocnstiution.

Nope, you all want to change the basic rules, which I suppose might be doable. So, what is it you have in mind? For sure it's not conservative, so what would your perfect system be like? What kind of laws? How quick can it get what you want?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Nope, you all want to change the basic rules, which I suppose might be doable. So, what is it you have in mind? For sure it's not conservative, so what would your perfect system be like? What kind of laws? How quick can it get what you want?

I think you're reading in a lot. I personally just want a judiciary a little less full of itself.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This case bring up many issues. Maybe a spouse should lose guardianship when he's in a new relationship. This is an obvious conflict. Maybe a FULL REVIEW of all relevant facts should be conducted when a life is at stake. This would be preferable to the mindless regurgitation of previous findings based on scant evidence. These do no require a complete redo of the system by any means. DOn't get hysterical.

 

[Annie]

I think you're reading in a lot. I personally just want a judiciary a little less full of itself.

Well the courts/laws are not about one. So if this, then that.

Actually it's not just Shaivo, which was hardly judicial activism, quite possibly incompetence, perhaps even malfeasance, but not activism. It was the Congress of the US that went over the top and obviously many think it was a good first step. May very well be. I wonder towards what? I guess that is my question.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well the courts/laws are not about one. So if this, then that.

Actually it's not just Shaivo, which was hardly judicial activism, quite possibly incompetence, perhaps even malfeasance, but not activism. It was the Congress of the US that went over the top and obviously many think it was a good first step. May very well be. I wonder towards what? I guess that is my question.

It's not that over the top. It's a law, that's what congress makes, laws.
I think it's fine to demand a rehearing when life is at stake. Just like the endless federal appeals for those on death row. There's no theocratic revolution here. Move along.

 

[Nienna]

I'd give a smilie hug mom but they're all to inappropriate LOL

Thank you for your consideration for my modesty as a lady.

 

[Annie]

It's not that over the top. It's a law, that's what congress makes, laws.
I think it's fine to demand a rehearing when life is at stake. Just like the endless federal appeals for those on death row. There's no theocratic revolution here. Move along.

Sure there is a call to arms. Dismantle some of the courts. Recall judges that groups don't agree with. It's been written many times. I've seen 'it's a fight to the death,' from people I consider reasonable. I'm wondering what all of those folks want to see. BTW, I don't have to 'move along' I've posted nothing inflammatory or inappropriate.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Sure there is a call to arms. Dismantle some of the courts. Recall judges that groups don't agree with. It's been written many times. I've seen 'it's a fight to the death,' from people I consider reasonable. I'm wondering what all of those folks want to see. BTW, I don't have to 'move along' I've posted nothing inflammatory or inappropriate.

This is all constitutional.

Of course you don't really have to move along, Kathianne. I was just doing my Officer Friendly impersonation.

 

[musicman]

I've seen 'it's a fight to the death,' from people I consider reasonable. I'm wondering what all of those folks want to see.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/504hndlw.asp

I want these people stopped. THIS is what's at stake. The two prevailing ideologies in America cannot co-exist. In any sense that matters to freedom-loving peoples, this is - most assuredly - a fight to the death.

 

[musicman]

"...REHABILITATION OF PRIVILEGES OF 14th AMENDMENT WHICH HAVE NEVER BEEN REDEEMED"??!!! There remains some manner in which the 14th has not already been raped, tortured, and forced out onto the streets to turn tricks for the pimps of liberalism??!!! I'm damned if I can see it - but, then - as Hinderaker points out - we didn't see a LOT of things.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/504hndlw.asp

I want these people stopped. THIS is what's at stake. The two prevailing ideologies in America cannot co-exist. In any sense that matters to freedom-loving peoples, this is - most assuredly - a fight to the death.

Super article musicman!

If progressives are to rehabilitate that Constitution, they must now, more than ever, articulate constitutional ideals capable of inspiring the next generation.

The libs want to "rehab" the Constitution? This really comes as no surprise and they sure are not making a secret of it anymore, are they?

The touchstone is Franklin Roosevelt's "Second Bill of Rights," which would recognize a right to "a useful and remunerative job"; sufficient earnings to provide "adequate" food, clothing, and recreation; a "decent" home; a "good education"; and "adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health."

FDR - the touchstone of socialists

 

[musicman]

Bump.