The Terri Shiavo Controversy - DPChallenge Forums

03/23/2005 07:15:41 PM · #226

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by RonB:
Given those conditions, I believe that the death penalty would be very rare.

Too bad somebody didnâ��t tell that to Governor Bush back in Texas, where he holds the record for most executions under a single governor, and it only took him 6 years to do it.

I thought he was a fan of Christian teachings? He has said his favorite philosopher was "Christ". I guess these types of things only relate when he thinks they should? In fact one of the laws he passed in Texas as governor has been used to remove Terri's feeding tube. Glad to see no hypocrisy here.

Must have something to do with politics...

Rather, it must have something to do with the will of the people, or their elected representatives: Of the 38 states with death-penalty laws, Texas is among only three that do not provide the option of life without parole. Under current law, a life sentence in Texas allows for the possibility of parole after 40 years, a prospect that some jurors have said tipped their decision in favor of execution. Furthermore, Texas state laws regarding the appeals process were streamlined in 1995 ( shortly after the Supreme Court re-validated the death penalty ), trimming the number of years inmates linger on death row. The state's Court of Criminal Appeals and the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals are among the most reluctant of higher courts to overturn convictions. Add to that a high murder rate in the 1980s and early 1990s, and the state's large population, and the number of executions appears to equal simple math.

Bush didn't do the crimes, he didn't sit on the bench or in the jury box. All he did was a) refuse to grant a stay of execution, and b) sign the law that streamlined the appeals process.

But you know the rule: if the opportunity arises in which you can bash Bush, even if unfairly, don't let it slip by.

Curious though, which law "passed" by Bush in Texas as governor, was used to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube? I thought that she was in Florida?

03/23/2005 07:32:00 PM · #227

I'm a bit reluctant to proceed with this, as I know that a lot of people (here at DPC and in the public at large) do not want to appear to be "confrontational" nor "insensitive to/dismissive of" the religious values that many of our fellow citizens hold. However, as I've noted before, we -- the American public -- should now be extremely mindful of what's taking place and, too, of the nature of the debate that a certain faction of -- let's be honest -- the Republican party has foisted onto the national stage. Before going on, let's be clear about one point, reasonable American's of virtually all political stripes agree on one thing: this tragedy is a PRIVATE FAMILY MATTER in which the federal government should've never interfered in -- PERIOD.

So, what compels those that have urged the federal government to interfere in this private family matter? Well, some have already been bold and candid enough to identify it for us:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Most of Mr. Shiavo's opponents appear to be more concerned with overturning those principles of tolerance and freedom, in favor of imposing a Fundamentalist Christian ethos on the entire population, regardless of whether that conflicts with others' principles and beliefs.

Others, in support of their world view, have gone even further and flushed out for us -- one can only construe -- what appears to be their ideal alternative body entrusted with deciding difficult cases like Mrs. Shiavo's:

Originally posted by RonB:

1) OUR courts are not the "place which the LORD thy God shall choose". Rather, they are places appointed by MEN.
2) OUR judges are neither priests, nor Levites, nor appointed by God through the priests or Levites. Rather, they are judges and juries chosen by MEN - the majority of whom are laymen, not clergy.
3) OUR judges do not judge according to the laws of GOD. They judge accroding to the laws of MEN.
4) As I have pointed out in my prior post, such lay judges and juries have made many great errors before in adjudicating the death penalty, albeit not by intent. Death is a huge, and irreversable price to pay for such errors.

Again, reasonable Americans need to be FULLY aware about the nature of the federal government's actions -- at the behest of a vociferous faction -- in deciding to interfere in this private family matter. Moreover, we should not be timid nor reluctant in confronting those that would jeopardize our system of laws, plurality (religious, ethnic, etc.) and federalism. Now, this may sound merely as an academic concern; however, it is through a series of small, incremental actions that policies and our national direction can be changed -- interference in the tragic Shiavo case is such an example.

Now, to demonstrate that my concern -- and the concern of others -- is shared across party lines, here's what Republican Representative Christopher Shays has said on this matter:

"My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing," said Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. "This couldn't be a more classic case of a state responsibility."

"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy," Shays said. "There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them."

Message edited by author 2005-03-23 19:33:33.

03/23/2005 07:34:26 PM · #228

Originally posted by bdobe:

Ron,

Your "correction" needs to be corrected:

Originally posted by RonB:
For one thing, there is absolutely nothing in the Texas Advance Directives Act that comes even close to stipulating anything about one's ability to pay - it's not in there.

I posted this earlier in this thread, from the Texas Futile Care Law (which is the law what then-governor Bush singed into law):

"(e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g)."

Which is the rationale that has been cited by Texas hospitals seeking to end life-support in certain cases, when payment is not possible and when the attending doctors have concluded that artificial life-support is no-longer advisable.

(Note: unfortunately the Houston Chronicle article on this case has been removed from the site, it lived here: //www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3073295)

Well, now YOUR correction to MY correction needs to be corrected.
While the Directive does make a statement about the "responsibility to pay" that responsibility only comes into play 10 days AFTER a determination has been made to suspend artificial life-support at the present facility. The "ability to pay" is NOT posited as a part of the decision making process.

As you state in your own post the decision is predicated upon "when the attending doctors have concluded that artificial life-support is no-longer advisable". The Directive takes that one step further and qualifies it to be "futile".

To suggest that a physicians review board would make a decision of that gravity based on an ability to pay is to question the integrity of the entire medical community.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

03/23/2005 08:00:17 PM · #229

Again, further background on the forces that have compelled the Republican party, which is in full control of the federal government, to intervene in this case (from Reuters):

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Christian evangelicals, a key component in President Bush's Republican Party, believe the case of brain-damaged Florida woman Terri Schiavo may help inject new life into their long campaign against abortion.

"The right-to-life issue has been with us for over 30 years but never has it dominated the news headlines day after day as it is doing now," said Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition.

Republican leaders and President Bush had little choice other than to respond to Christian evangelical demands on the Schiavo case or risk alienating a crucial part of their political base, political analysts said.

[...]

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Christian Family Research Council, said the furor over Schiavo was the direct result of years of campaigning against abortion.

[...]

Writing in the Wall Street Journal last Friday, conservative columnist and former White House speechwriter Peggy Noonan set out the stakes for Republicans.

"The Republican Party controls the Senate, the House and the White House. The Republicans are in charge. They have the power. If they can't save this woman's life, they will face a reckoning from a sizable portion of their own base. And they will of course deserve it," Noonan wrote.

In campaigning for Schiavo to live, some Christian conservatives, including Sheldon and James Dobson who heads the influential Focus on the Family organization, also argue against the notion of a "right to die," even in cases when an individual clearly states his own wish not to prolong life.

"I don't believe in a right to die. I think that God is in control of our destiny," Dobson said recently.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

03/23/2005 08:27:36 PM · #230

In addition, two states, Indiana and Kansas are trying to get the medical records of women who have undergone reproductive health counciling/services from Planned Parenthood. This would go against the strict federal HIPPA laws regarding privacy but they persist in order to harass woman into not seeking help from PP.

Originally posted by bdobe:

03/23/2005 09:16:37 PM · #231

And more evidence that a certain "vociferous" faction, within the ruling party in Washington, is actively working to breach the protective "Church/State" divide; and, thereby, inject the federal government into similar "personal/private" issues (from the Lawrence Journal, Kansas):

Pastors or other church leaders could use their pulpits to endorse political candidates under a controversial bill backed by U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, R[epublican]-Kan.

[...]

The bill would allow pastors and ministers to endorse candidates, but churches still would be prohibited from spending money on a candidate's campaign if they want to retain their tax-exempt status.

[...]

Brownback's efforts are opposed by the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

"What Brownback is trying to do is politicize the American pulpit. He wants to make it legal for church leaders to hand down lists of endorsements," said Americans United spokesman Robert Boston.

[...]

Lawrence ministers and pastors are divided on the issue.

[...]

"Anybody who knows history knows our forefathers founded this country to get away from a government-dictated church," he said. "But that's not to say the church could not or should not take part in government. We've got it backwards. We've restrained the church instead of restraining the government."

The Rev. Peter Luckey, senior pastor at Plymouth Congregational Church, 925 Vt., disagreed. It's wrong to mix worship services with political campaigns, he said.

"One of the great gifts of democracy is the separation of church and state," he said. "As a pastor, I want to be supportive of that separation."

03/23/2005 09:25:56 PM · #232

Originally posted by bdobe:

Excuse me for a minute while I regain my composure...

Perhaps just a moment more...

Ahh. I think I can go on now.

Originally posted by bdobe:

However, as I've noted before, we -- the American public -- should now be extremely mindful of what's taking place and, too, of the nature of the debate that a certain faction of -- let's be honest -- the Republican party has foisted onto the national stage.

Hmmm. The Republicans have "foisted" this upon the national stage, eh. NOTE: It wouldn't BE on the national stage if certain Clinton nominated activist judges weren't creating new anti-life legislation from the bench. In my opinion, it has taken the actions of BOTH parties to "foist" this upon the national stage.

Originally posted by bdobe:

Before going on, let's be clear about one point, reasonable American's of virtually all political stripes agree on one thing: this tragedy is a PRIVATE FAMILY MATTER in which the federal government should've never interfered in -- PERIOD.

I guess that makes anyone who disagrees with your position, by default, "unreasonable" - my, my, you liberals are SOOOO tolerant I can hardly contain myself. Well, I consider it a badge of honor to be labeled as "unreasonable" by liberals. That means that I'm doing good.

Originally posted by bdobe:

So, what compels those that have urged the federal government to interfere in this private family matter?

Concern for the life of someone who cannot speak on her own behalf?

Originally posted by bdobe:

Well, some have already been bold and candid enough to identify it for us:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Most of Mr. Shiavo's opponents appear to be more concerned with overturning those principles of tolerance and freedom, in favor of imposing a Fundamentalist Christian ethos on the entire population, regardless of whether that conflicts with others' principles and beliefs.

No matter WHAT group of like-minded people you chose, their "ethos" will conflict with SOMEONE's principles and beliefs. It seems that the only group whose principles and beliefs should NOT be viewed as worthy of consideration are those of ( surprise! ) Fundamentalist Christians. How very tolerant ( of others, that is, not of Fundamentalist Christians ).

Originally posted by bdobe:

Construe away, sir. But do so at your own risk. My post was in response to the posting of a biblical passages by Olyuzi - WITH THE QUESTION TO ME as to why it isn't applicable to the Schiavo case. I merely responded to him AS HE REQUESTED and showed the reasons why the biblical passage he posted was NOT relevant to the Schiavo case. I did not even HINT that the biblical directives represented my world view of how the judiciary should be constructed. But by "construing" my response as such, you have merely exposed your own agenda quite well.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by bdobe:

Yes, and they need to be FULLY aware about the nature of activist judges in deciding the life/death of innocent human beings.

Originally posted by bdobe:

Moreover, we should not be timid nor reluctant in confronting those that would jeopardize our system of laws, plurality (religious, ethnic, etc.) and federalism.

I agree. Especially those who would deny Fundamentalist Christians the rights and priveleges guaranteed to "all" citizens by our Constitution.
For example, they want to deny fundamental Christians the right to effect changes to the laws of the land by way of the ballot. They want to deny the rights of Republican Congressmen to propose and pass federal legislation, even if done in accordance with the rules layed out in the Constitution ( but only if the laws that Republicans want to pass are "disagreeable" to them - otherwise it's quite OK ).

Originally posted by bdobe:

Now, this may sound merely as an academic concern; however, it is through a series of small, incremental actions that policies and our national direction can be changed -- interference in the tragic Shiavo case is such an example.

Yes, we certainly must beware the small incremental actions. First it was abortion only in the event of rape or incest, then it was abortion only in the first trimester under a doctor's supervision, then it was abortion on demand at clinics, then abortion without parental notification, then partial birth abortion,... now it's an incapacitated woman. What's next - a senile grandfather?, a down's syndrome baby?

Originally posted by bdobe:

Now, to demonstrate that my concern -- and the concern of others -- is shared across party lines, here's what Republican Representative Christopher Shays has said on this matter:

"My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing," said Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. "This couldn't be a more classic case of a state responsibility."

"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy," Shays said. "There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them."

Thanks so much for making us aware that this a PARTY issue. You do know, don't you, that moral values are part of the reason that the Democrats were defeated in last year's elections? So what did they learn from that experience? Oh, that's right - NOTHING.

03/23/2005 09:33:26 PM · #233

Originally posted by bdobe:

And your reaction is just more evidence that liberals desire to deny Christians ( especially the fundamentalists ) the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Though I didn't hear you complaining when Clinton and Kerry were delivering their anti-Bush speeches from the pulpits during last year's campaign.

03/23/2005 09:48:49 PM · #234

Originally posted by RonB:

Well, you're certainly hyperbolic. Ron, no one is denying anybody their right to voice their opinions within constitutional bounds. However, what Fundamentalist are seeking is way beyond what is currently permissible under the law; hence, Republican officials are offering new laws that will allow the church to play a greater and more active role in our nation's politics. Accordingly, because many such laws are often passed without much public input or awareness, I posted the article mentioning the proposed Republican law so that those reading this thread are at least aware of the proposed law.

PhotoRyno

03/23/2005 09:49:12 PM · #235

RonB has it correct, anti-life legislation. Anti-life legislation is a very dangerous road we are taking ourselves. It has happened with the un-born babies, now the sick, next the Alzheimer's grandparents, maybe me because YOU might THINK I would not like to live under YOUR assumption YOU do not like me. Guess what I am for the living!

This is beyond principles THIS IS LIFE

If someone is going to lose their life ---- I think he/she should be the one to decide. Not Govn't, not you, me, nor anything else.

My political affiliation ----- Human

03/23/2005 10:06:11 PM · #236

PhotoRyno,

I think you're misinterpreting RonB's position, if this is in fact what you believe:

Originally posted by PhotoRyno:

If someone is going to lose their life ---- I think he/she should be the one to decide. Not Govn't, not you, me, nor anything else.

Because, if we follow RonB's reasoning and arguments from previous posts in this thread, he would allow the federal government to interfere in such private/personal matters:

Originally posted by RonB:

The legislators are using the only methods available to them to prevent ( or attempt to prevent ) a mistake by the judiciary from ending the life of someone whose wishes are not factually "known" but only testified to by someone whose motives are questionable.*

Accordingly, it fallows that he supports government interference in this case; moreover, it also follows that, if an "activist" judge had decided in favor of the position that he holds, RonB would not be objecting to the decision so strenuously.

* Note that RonB is merely injecting his own opinion here in regards to motives, as no court has found anything to support such claims.

Message edited by author 2005-03-23 22:10:14.

PhotoRyno

03/23/2005 10:24:42 PM · #237

allowing the federal government to interfere in such private/personal matters: YES always on the side of LIFE. Without life I see or take no pictures.

One of the few things a goverment is responsible for like building roads ..... is protection, and protection is .... LIFE? Her family is willing to care for her which is also a private/personal matter.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

03/23/2005 10:36:15 PM · #238

So, I suppose that this is just a throw away line then:

Originally posted by PhotoRyno:

If someone is going to lose their life ---- I think he/she should be the one to decide. Not Govn't, not you, me, nor anything else.

jmritz

Fujifilm X30

Custom Made Pinhole

03/23/2005 10:39:10 PM · #239

bdode what do you mean by activist judges? My Dad had a stroke in the early 80's and my family was called into a room by doctors and told that his condition was at a stage that they advised we not take any measures that if taken they could not undo. They advised against putting him on a respirator or a feeding tube or anything other than letting him pass away. We at that time could not see him die. They took steps that kept him alive. He never recovered and even with the 'life support' he died. They were very clear that they had no power to change the steps we took and they told us once decided we could not change our minds and take the respirator off or the feeding tubes out. Once made we were stuck with our decion. Have times changed? Now we can decide to unplug people or is it Activist judges on the liberal side that have taken this into their hands and now is it law that it is possible to disconnect people. Don't you remember how it used to be? I think the Activist Judges are the ones that have decided to allow the disconnect.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/23/2005 10:40:50 PM · #240

Originally posted by PhotoRyno:

Assume for a moment that the government decided tomorrow that selected individuals warrant being maintained indefinitely in cryostasis, and that all the costs incurred would be your responsibility.... would you still be a proponent of governmental intervention?

Just curious.

Ray

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

03/23/2005 10:53:27 PM · #241

Originally posted by jmritz:

I think the Activist Judges are the ones that have decided to allow the disconnect.

I disagree, I think that those actively working against Mrs. Shiavo's stated wishes -- as described by her husband -- are shopping around for an activist judge that will overturn the decision of eight other courts. And, now that the Florida legislature has refused the bill that was put in front of them by Gov. Jeb Bush, it appears that -- if they find such an activist judge --, those working against Mrs. Shiavo's wishes seek to overrule the decision of the people of Florida (as expressed by their representatives in the Florida legislature).

milo655321

Nikon D70

03/23/2005 11:10:43 PM · #242

Originally posted by jmritz:

I think the Activist Judges are the ones that have decided to allow the disconnect.

No need to capitalize the "A" and the "J," regardless what you hear from your sources, it's not an actual title. Don't you think it's odd that no one can find where these "activist" judges are misinterpreting the law? Even eight decisions later? The Shindler's attorney, after five years, is arguing that the Shindlers have not received due process or a "fair hearing." He's not arguing that statutes have been misapplied. That's why both the Florida State Legislature and Congress have passed laws (one unconstitutional, the other questionable, likely to be ruled unconstitutional if it goes that far) for another hearing. It's not because some judge, much less over a dozen judges (or so), is going out on a legal limb.

Natator

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/23/2005 11:12:07 PM · #243

I still feel the most awful thing going on here is not if she should be allowed to die or not (reword that whatever way you like, it's not the point I am aiming at) but that she dies in such an awful way. Even if she has no cognition of what is happening, it is an awful way for her family to see her die. Although I am on the side of letting her die, I so wish there was a more humane way of enabling this.

Whatever does happen with all the court rulings, I do however hope it gets sorted out this time once and for all and she either allowed to die or allowed to live, and it remains that way ... and we do not see a repeat (after this time if it does happen) of tubes being pulled out, replaced, removed etc etc etc.

jmritz

Fujifilm X30

Custom Made Pinhole

03/23/2005 11:15:44 PM · #244

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by jmritz:
I think the Activist Judges are the ones that have decided to allow the disconnect.

I disagree, I think that those actively working against Mrs. Shiavo's stated wishes -- as described by her husband -- are shopping around for an activist judge that will overturn the decision of eight other courts. And, now that the Florida legislature has refused the bill that was put in front of them by Gov. Jeb Bush, it appears that -- if they find such an activist judge --, those working against Mrs. Shiavo's wishes seek to overrule the decision of the people of Florida (as expressed by their representatives in the Florida legislature).

I agree by todays standards the Conservative judges would be considered Activists. Times have changed. I have no knowledge that it is her 'Shiavo's' wishes to be taken off the feeding tube. How was she put on the feeding tube to begin with if she wanted to die? This is a terribly sad thing to have to witness. Growing pains as the 'Government by Man thinking they are God' overwhelms us.

Message edited by author 2005-03-23 23:16:53.

Natator

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/24/2005 12:16:57 AM · #245

Originally posted by jmritz:

How was she put on the feeding tube to begin with if she wanted to die?

I think that could actually happen quite easily. My partner knows I would not want to be kept alive in a coma for any length of time. Imagine I had an accident, doctors try and save me, manage to save my life by I end up in a coma. During the "saving" I have probably ended up on all sorts of tubes ... as yes, I did want them to try and save my life.

I would speculate then that the tubes went in but it is only later when this is obviously a long term coma that her wish to not be kept alive (assuming that is the case) started to kick in.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/24/2005 12:28:27 AM · #246

Originally posted by RonB:

The problem is that churches enjoy certain priviledges the rest of us don't -- tax exemption. Which means they are essentially subsidized by taxpaying citizens. In exchange for that Federal tax exemption, they (and all other non-profits) give up some of their "free speech" rights.

Any church which chooses to forego that tax exemption is free to speak out on issues or endorse any candidates they wish.

BTW: I know the Constitution makes several references to the rights of citizens or people. I'd appreciate if you could direct me to the language which confers any rights --particularly "free speech" rights -- to corporations.

Message edited by author 2005-03-24 00:56:01.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/24/2005 12:42:56 AM · #247

Originally posted by jmritz:

I've been reading some literature on a similar case, the Nancy Cruzan case in Missouri, came across the Supreme Court decision and was just now reading this passage from the dissenting opinion of Justices Brennan, Marshall and Blackmun: "When the President's Commission in 1982 approved the withdrawal of life support equipment from irreversibly vegetative patients, it explained that '[a]n even more troubling wrong occurs when a treatment that might save life or improve health is not started because the health care personnel are afraid that they will find it very difficult to stop the treatment if, as is fairly likely, it proves to be of little benefit and greatly burdens the patient.' President's Commission 75. A New Jersey court recognized that families as well as doctors might be discouraged by an inability to stop life-support measures from 'even attempting certain types of care [which] could thereby force them into hasty and premature decisions to allow a patient to die.' In re Conroy, 98 N.J. 321, 370, 486 A. 2d 1209, 1234, (1985). See also Brief for American Academy of Neurology as Amicus Cruae 9 (expressing same concern)."

It sounds to me like the President's Commission referred to above had more to do with changing the law in this area than any action by so-called "activist judges." Here is the Supreme Court decision if you'd like to read more about it: Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, Dissenting Opinion

Message edited by author 2005-03-24 00:45:05.

03/24/2005 07:33:18 AM · #248

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by RonB:
And your reaction is just more evidence that liberals desire to deny Christians ( especially the fundamentalists ) the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Though I didn't hear you complaining when Clinton and Kerry were delivering their anti-Bush speeches from the pulpits during last year's campaign.

Well, you're certainly hyperbolic. Ron, no one is denying anybody their right to voice their opinions within constitutional bounds. However, what Fundamentalist are seeking is way beyond what is currently permissible under the law; hence, Republican officials are offering new laws that will allow the church to play a greater and more active role in our nation's politics. Accordingly, because many such laws are often passed without much public input or awareness, I posted the article mentioning the proposed Republican law so that those reading this thread are at least aware of the proposed law.

You are correct in stating that what Fundamentalists are seeking is beyond what is currently permissible under the law, AND that Republican officials are offering new laws that will allow the church to play a greater and more active role in our nation's politics. So what? Isn't that the purpose of EVERY proposal brought before legislatures in EVERY state, and, indeed, in the U.S. Congress? To create new law that is beyond what is current law That's how it's done in this country. That's how the Constitution says it should be done.
For example: how about the "Count Every Vote Act of 2005" legislation that was recently introduced in the U.S. Senate by Hillary Clinton? That act proposes NEW law that goes beyond what is currently permissble under the law, too. In fact, that law would make it possible for a person to register and vote in an election at a precinct far from their own home without showing a single document of identification. So if you knew that your neighbor was not a registered voter or wasn't going to vote, you could vote in his name at another precinct and you'd probably never be found out. But I don't hear any liberals complaining about THAT proposal.
No, it's just legislation that liberals don't like that shouldn't be introduced.

03/24/2005 08:05:24 AM · #249

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by RonB:
The legislators are using the only methods available to them to prevent ( or attempt to prevent ) a mistake by the judiciary from ending the life of someone whose wishes are not factually "known" but only testified to by someone whose motives are questionable.*

Accordingly, it fallows that he supports government interference in this case; moreover, it also follows that, if an "activist" judge had decided in favor of the position that he holds, RonB would not be objecting to the decision so strenuously.

* Note that RonB is merely injecting his own opinion here in regards to motives, as no court has found anything to support such claims.

The only reason that I wouldn't object if an "activist" judge had decided in favor of the position that I hold is that THAT decision could be reviewed and reversed at a later date without resulting in someone dying during the review. That is a big difference.
BTW, where did I inject my own opinion here in regards to motives?