Comments on: Stotch on Schiavo

By: Pajama Pundits

Pajama Pundits — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:25:05 +0000

An A to Z Link Fest
Alphecca, Weekly Check on the Bias. A look at how the media is talking about guns and the 2nd Amendment

Baldilocks,

By: Pajama Pundits

Pajama Pundits — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:19:06 +0000

An A to Z Link Fest
Alphecca, Weekly Check on the Bias. A look at how the media is talking about guns and the 2nd Amendment

Baldilocks,

By: praktike

praktike — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:02:36 +0000

Actually, it isn't. See here.

By: Just Me

Just Me — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:15:02 +0000

reliapundit makes a good point. The courts hold the legislative and executive branches accountable, but now that the courts are in the business of writing law, who is holding the courts accountable? (that said I want to make it clear that in this case I don't really see judicial activism, I think the judges worked within what the law allowed, but I strongly disagree with the conclusions reached, and I have huge issues with the fact that we are killing people without strong evidence-I am also strongly troubled by what the future holds now in regards to the disabled. Some of you may want to live in the Netherlands, but I would like to live in a country where all life is valued, even those who are severely disabled. Maybe my issue with the Sciavo case, is that I don't know that I like the country or the courts this case has revealed it to be. I feel like my government really is in the business of murder at the moment.

By: reliapundit

reliapundit — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:28:52 +0000

a judge arbited. that is ALL POWERFUL.

and when the Congress -which has SPECIFIED CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY ON THIS EXACT AREA - ordered the judges to re-arbit and they FLATLY and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY REFUSED.

congress acted within its authority and within its specified powers under the cConstitution.

the judges ACTED EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONALLY.

what is so hard to understand about that!?

and THAT'S why if you "fear big brother" you should fear the courts more.

LOOK AT IT THIS WAY:

how many supreme court justices (or fed justices for that matter) have YOU ever voted out of office!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

they are unaccountable, and ACCOUNTABILITY to the electorater IS DEMOCRACY!

Okay. SHE IS DEAD NOW! Are you happy!?
A painless death that would land you in jail iof you did it to a pet.

By: praktike

praktike — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:55:14 +0000

Actually, she's not being starved to death. She will die a painless, natural death as a result of dehydration.

By: Leopold Stotch

Leopold Stotch — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:48:57 +0000

I suppose this is a question of me not being clear in my wording -- which is an indication that I just don't know in this case, but I wish the talk was about erring on the side of individual freedom from government action. Yes, the courts are part of the government, but their action as arbiter is fundamentally different than the exercise of state power we've seen from the President and Congress.

As to the state being charged with protecting life, liberty, and property, I think this is the courts have done: they've acted in a way to protect Terri Schiavo's liberty to not want to live in this state.

By: Rusty Shackleford

Rusty Shackleford — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:59:14 +0000

Stotch, you ignorant slut.

Governments are formed to protect life, liberty, and property.

By: reliapundit

reliapundit — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:57:50 +0000

without the STATE michael could not pull the plug. the STATE gave him the power to order the plug pulled.

if the STATE had kept out then terri would not be starved to death.

By: wavemaker

wavemaker — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:59:23 +0000

I agree with James -- once the principals involved ask the Court to resolve their dispute, it is (by its very definition) constrained to render its decision on the basis of law, not on the basis of relative moral values. And that's the crux of all this controversy, law versus morals. But that doesn't mean what happens to Terri is our business. Where the debate goes in the aftermath is, though.

By: Just Me

Just Me — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:02:42 +0000

I don't think there was anyway you cold keep the government out of this one, because there wasn't an agreement on what Terri wanted.

But the facts are that in most cases, families don't disagree to this degree, which is why it doesn't get splashed all over the news 24/7.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:25:01 +0000

The problem, though, is that in this case the husband and parents disagree on fundamental facts and have sought the courts as an arbiter. Courts are an inherently governmental/public sphere venue.

By: Winston Smith 6079

Winston Smith 6079 — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:48:20 +0000

I guess I agree with you for once...

yeah, I do.

I think it's hard to come up with an opinion because there are some things that you just can't know. I believe that this is a matter for the courts, but not the congress.

I agree with them in that they wanted to push it into another court because they disagreed. But I don't understand the people there who wish her to stay alive. How do they know that she isn't suffering? How do they know she wants to live or not?

It's not something they can answer, so they should stay quiet. Don't presume to know something you can't.