What kind of Republican are you?

[namon]

Ya, I do have to admit the story seems to completely change every other day seemingly... I've all but given up on following it. The concern i have is the legal ramifications behind who has the right to make what call on someone's life's value to society. That's really my only concern from all of this.

[Grimble]

Originally posted by namon


As far as the Schaivo case, I understand the video could be edited and that's a good argument. On the other hand it could very easily be said that they are just exagerating her condition so the Husband can get out of this with money still in tact. If he loses his "guardianship" he loses the cash that is involved in this case. Her condition (I may be wrong) I believe was caused by a medical malpractice that had quite a reward attached to it. Of course he wants her to die, and he sure as hell does not want to sign all that money over to the parents who are more than willing to take care of her by letting them take over.

On the Federal Gov't (Congress, Senate, White House) stepping in and trying to interfere... I'm not going to argue one way or the other on this case. The only thing that just bothers me, is I believe our court system is way out of balance and control. We in essance are ruled by nine unelected tyrants in black robes who serve until they die basically. I don't care what side of the isle you are on... that thought is just scary. I can live with a Democrat President and Congress and Senate. Even if it doesn't agree with me, I at least know the majority of the people are represented from their voice being heard in the ballot box. However, if nine men decide they don't like a law passed by the government for the people... they can just scrap it with no real fear of repercussion?

Nice to hear from the other side and sorry to heavy edit your post, but these are the two things I wanted to respond to.

1. Schaivo's Husband: I don't buy the argument that this guy is out for money at all. This case has been running through lawyers for 10+ years. Do you have any idea how much it would cost to pay for lawyers in a serious case like this for that long? As an up and coming lawyer I can assure you that it is approaching, if not upwards, of 7 figures. Then there are the medical costs. I really have no idea if he is paying the bills or not, but if so it has to cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to keep someone alive and in a hospital bed for 15 years. Finally, there is all the hate-publicity this guy is getting by sticking by this case. If this guy really didn't give a shit about his former wife he would just move away, remarry and have nothing to do with her. By spending millions of dollars and willing to plaster his face all over national TV, it makes me believe he is probably telling the truth about her wishes.

2. On the Judicial System: Sounds like you have been listening to too much O'Reily. I think the majority of Americans are getting this impression that judges base their decisions on personal beliefs. Maybe I'm just idealistic, but according to an EXTREMLY STRICT code of ethics, judges are required to abide by the law. This is actually clear by the Schaivo case. If you look at the law, every single judge decided the case based upon the law which was that the spouse has the final say. If you don't like this decision, don't blame the judges for following the law, blame the legislature for passing the law. Thats what REALLY pissed me off about this situation. There were all these people protesting and hoping the judges would have a "change of heart." Hey guess what? Judges aren't supposed to have a change of heart, they are supposed to abide by the law! Its ironic that people are crying "judicial activism" when the judges are just applying the law. If you don't like the law then your recourse is through the legislative system, but don't blame judges because they followed the law.

3. However, if nine men decide they don't like a law passed by the government for the people... they can just scrap it with no real fear of repercussion?: That is right BEOTCH! These nine men are trusted to uphold the Constitution. Its called checks and balances. For almost the entire history of this country, the Supreme Court has had the ability to determine if a law is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has said numerous times that it has a duty to watch over minorities because the majority is protected by their elected government. The Court is not supposed to be elected, that is the whole point. They are charged with keeping watch over the elected body and making sure they are acting constitutionally. What the Congress is attemping to do with the Shaivo case is so blatenly unconstituional I can't believe the Supreme Court hasn't issued an opinion. Thank God they at least refused to hear the matter.

After all this, I'm not saying the death of Terry is good or not. I'm just saying you are placing the blame in completely the wrong place. The courts are not to blame. In my personal belief, Congress should not be involved in state matters, particularly personal family matters such as this. But if you think the laws should be changed, then write your congressmen or vote, don't blame the courts for following the law.

[Eomer]

I must say that the comments coming from Delay and other hard right Republicans in regards to the judiciary are fucking chilling, and if these people have their way politically for a decade or two, the US could end up a very different country than what it was. "Runaway judiciary" so on and so forth, it's fucking scary. These judges have been doing their jobs, from gay rights/marriage to the Schiavo case. To accuse them of activism or being "out of control" because they are following the letter of the law is insane.

[Phoenix]

I just want to be able to own a brand new M16 for $1000 .

[EnigmaticParadigm]

I must say that the comments coming from Delay and other hard right Republicans in regards to the judiciary are fucking chilling, and if these people have their way politically for a decade or two, the US could end up a very different country than what it was. "Runaway judiciary" so on and so forth, it's fucking scary. These judges have been doing their jobs, from gay rights/marriage to the Schiavo case. To accuse them of activism or being "out of control" because they are following the letter of the law is insane.

Quoted for fucking truth.

[Magnum PI]

The only Republican who ever believed in small govt was Ronald Reagan. Bush, Clinton and Bush II all believe in Big Govt and within the next 20 years you won't be able to do shit without a National ID card and there will be border checks everywhere done by satillites.

SLEEP, CONFORM, OBEY

[xeg_IS]

within the next 20 years you won't be able to do shit without a National ID card and there will be border checks everywhere done by satillites.

k

[LISeru]

Originally posted by Doc
The only Republican who ever believed in small govt was Ronald Reagan. Bush, Clinton and Bush II all believe in Big Govt and within the next 20 years you won't be able to do shit without a National ID card and there will be border checks everywhere done by satillites.

SLEEP, CONFORM, OBEY

rofl, riiight. Reagan was really for small govt.

Go hit yourself with a hammer.
*On the backswing