VABills Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 How about the Republican memo that was distributed to Republican senators by party leaders that called the case a "great political issue" and a "tough issue for Democrats," per the WaPost. It said the case would excite the party's anti-abortion base and put pressure on Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who faces re-election next year." This is just more political grandstanding on the Republicans' part and it sickens me. We used to be much better than this. 281728[/snapback] So this is just Republicans, I could have sworn some democrats for for this as well.
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 You find it vile and disgusting that someone would want to protect an innocent life? I'd be willing to bet that if there was someone on death row that you thought was "innocent" that you'd be howling for congress to intervene. 281725[/snapback] She is dead and has been for years. The courts have decided in Terry's favor and Bush is shredding the constitution, trampling on state's right, and disregarding the rule of law for a cheap political point with religious extremists.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 How about the Republican memo that was distributed to Republican senators by party leaders that called the case a "great political issue" and a "tough issue for Democrats," per the WaPost. It said the case would excite the party's anti-abortion base and put pressure on Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who faces re-election next year." This is just more political grandstanding on the Republicans' part and it sickens me. We used to be much better than this. 281728[/snapback] Right. And the Democrats don't try to play the same game? Remember Bismarck's maxim: The people should definitely not know about how sausage or politics are made.
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 So this is just Republicans, I could have sworn some democrats for for this as well. 281730[/snapback] Democrats have not circulated any memo's outlining a strategy to capitilize on what should be a private family matter.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 She is dead and has been for years. The courts have decided in Terry's favor and Bush is shredding the constitution, trampling on state's right, and disregarding the rule of law for a cheap political point with religious extremists. 281732[/snapback] It's imperative that the executive be able to reign in activist judges.
VABills Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 She is dead and has been for years. The courts have decided in Terry's favor and Bush is shredding the constitution, trampling on state's right, and disregarding the rule of law for a cheap political point with religious extremists. 281732[/snapback] How? That the Florida judicial system is ignoring their own constituion forces this to be a federal matter.
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 Right. And the Democrats don't try to play the same game? Remember Bismarck's maxim: The people should definitely not know about how sausage or politics are made. 281733[/snapback] No. Democrats repect the constitution and state's rights in this instance. If you can produce a Democratic memo talking about how to take politicla advantage of this I'd like to see it. You can't.
KRC Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 I'd be willing to bet that if there was someone on death row that you thought was "innocent" that you'd be howling for congress to intervene. 281725[/snapback] Death row is usually a petition to the Governor to stay the execution, not Congress. Of course when Jeb intervened it was for political reasons, but when a Governor intervenes in a death penalty case, it is OK. Way to stay consistent. IMO, Congress has no right to force this legislation through. I am no lawyer, but isn't there a part of the consititution that specifically states that Congress cannot enact legislation for a specific person? It was in reference to a British attempt to label John Adams as a criminal, IIRC, but don't quote me on that. While this legislation is not specifically written with Terri's name in it, it is obviously for her with the speed at which the Reps and Dims pushed it through the Senate and House and with which the President signed it.
VABills Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 Democrats have not circulated any memo's outlining a strategy to capitilize on what should be a private family matter. 281735[/snapback] Did some democrats for for the bills last night? The answer is yes, therefore whether they commit their feeling to paper or not means that they agree this is the right thing to do. Or are you saying democrats do not think and just go along with whatever.
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 How? That the Florida judicial system is ignoring their own constituion forces this to be a federal matter. 281737[/snapback] What specific state statute is their ruling in violation of?
VABills Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 Death row is usually a petition to the Governor to stay the execution, not Congress. Of course when Jeb intervened it was for political reasons, but when a Governor intervenes in a death penalty case, it is OK. Way to stay consistent. IMO, Congress has no right to force this legislation through. I am no lawyer, but isn't there a part of the consititution that specifically states that Congress cannot enact legislation for a specific person? It was in reference to a British attempt to label John Adams as a criminal, IIRC, but don't quote me on that. While this legislation is not specifically written with Terri's name in it, it is obviously for her with the speed at which the Reps and Dims pushed it through the Senate and House and with which the President signed it. 281741[/snapback] KRC< you are correct this will get thrown out because of the statute. However, the Florida constitution and laws stats that assisting in suicide and Euthenasia are illegal. The fact that the judges are ignoring those statutes makes this a federal case.
KRC Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 No. Democrats repect the constitution and state's rights in this instance. You can't. 281740[/snapback] Only this instance. Other times, they are just as bad as Republicans in removing our Constitutional rights. Just look at the Second Amendment for a specific example of this.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 No. Democrats repect the constitution and state's rights in this instance. If you can produce a Democratic memo talking about how to take politicla advantage of this I'd like to see it. You can't. 281740[/snapback] What I MEANT, since you apparently need explanation, is that the Dims have used other issues as exploitative propellant. See: Rodney King riots. See: proposed SS reform. Ad nauseam.
VABills Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 What specific state statute is their ruling in violation of? 281744[/snapback] Reread this thread, I already posted one. In addition there are several others that state that this is illegal.
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 He has stated over and over that he wants the body immediately cremated when she passes. There is an allegation of abuse, and it is only prudent to investigate the matter fully. There was never an investigation into the alleged abuse the night she collapsed. Don't you think there should be an investigation? Hell, the guy wasn't even there when they removed the tube. He was too "busy" with other things. You would think that he would want to be there when they removed it. Hospitals go out of their way to schedule these things so that the family can be present. I guess it was too much of a bother. As far as Terri's "wish" to die, her husband seems to be changing his tune of late. In an interview on CNN (Larry King Show on Friday), he stated the following, "But this is not about [the parents], it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want..." 281722[/snapback] I'm not going to speculate on anything related to an investigation because I don't have all the facts. As far as not wanting to be around what is now a media circus orchestrated by religious zealots who are manipulating her family as politcla pawns, I would avoid that at all costs.
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 Reread this thread, I already posted one. In addition there are several others that state that this is illegal. 281749[/snapback] Then why didn't the federal appelas court vacate or overrule thier rulling? Then why didn't the Supreme Court hear the case?
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 What I MEANT, since you apparently need explanation, is that the Dims have used other issues as exploitative propellant. See: Rodney King riots. See: proposed SS reform. Ad nauseam. 281748[/snapback] We're dealing with a specific issue. Provide me a copy of the memo that Dems circulated about this specific issue.
KRC Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 I'm not going to speculate on anything related to an investigation because I don't have all the facts. As far as not wanting to be around what is now a media circus orchestrated by religious zealots who are manipulating her family as politcla pawns, I would avoid that at all costs. 281750[/snapback] So, if you were to fight for the removal of the feeding tube for your wife and you finally get your wish, you stay away when the deed is done? You are really reaching in your defense of him now. As far as the investigation, if there is a possibility that he was the cause, shouldn't there be an investigation into what actually happened? There is a potential that a crime was committed. It needs to be investigated.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 We're dealing with a specific issue. Provide me a copy of the memo that Dems circulated about this specific issue. 281757[/snapback] So you truly believe the Dims have never exploited a hot-button issue for political gain? Ignorance, thy name is LME.
KRC Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 Then why didn't the Supreme Court hear the case? 281754[/snapback] There are a lot of cases the Supreme Court does not hear. It has nothing to do with whether courts overstep their bounds. Hell, they would have to hear most of the cases from the 9th Circuit if that were the criteria.
Recommended Posts