Judicial Violence
-
Here is an interesting comment by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) made on the Senate Floor, I somewhat agree with him. Bart Ross/Lefkow, Schindler,Shiavo / Death threats on Greer, and that Atlanta Courtroom shootout. I don't think violence is the answer, but it is a symptom of problems with the politicization of judges, both on the extremes of left and right. "...it causes a lot of people, including me, great distress to see judges use the authority that they have been given to make raw political or ideological decisions. And no one, including those judges, including the judges on the United States Supreme Court, should be surprised if one of us stands up and objects. And, Mr. President, I'm going to make clear that I object to some of the decision-making process that is occurring at the United States Supreme Court today and now. I believe that insofar as the Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policy-maker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people, it has led to the increasing divisiveness and bitterness of our confirmation fights. That is a very current problem that this body faces today. It has generated a lack of respect for judges generally. I mean, why should people respect a judge for making a policy decision borne out of an ideological conviction any more than they would respect or deny themselves the opportunity to disagree if that decision were made by an elected representative? Of course the difference is that they can throw the rascal -- the rascal out -- and we are sometimes perceived as the rascal -- if they don't like the decisions that we make. But they can't vote against a judge because judges aren't elected. They serve for a lifetime on the federal bench. And, indeed, I believe this increasing politicalization of the judicial decision-making process at the highest levels of our judiciary have bred a lack of respect for some of the people that wear the robe. And that is a national tragedy. And finally, I – I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news. And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in -- engage
JWood wrote: judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public IMO, decisions related to the life in the City are by definition political. For instance, condemning to Death Penalty or not is a political action. JWood wrote: objectively interpret How can a human interpretation be objective? :confused: whatever the side, politicians always go against judges when the decisions of the latter don't fit them, claiming they are persecuted/countered/manipulated by a politically motivated judicial branch. I don't see that as a clear sign of democracy. Separation of powers is the base of our democratic systems, attacking that is threatening the very fundations of everything we believe is good to organize a society.
Fold With Us! Chaos A.D. Disorder unleashed
-
JWood wrote: Here is an interesting comment by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) made on the Senate Floor Sage commentary from a first term Senator. Mike K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
WTF?
And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in -- engage in violence.
umm, idjit (Cornyn, not Mike)? the recent cases of violence against judges were completely a-political. Cornyn is talking out his ass here, for the benefit of all the arm-chair vigilantes out there in Wingnutville. he's saying "Hey, nice judiciary you got there. It'd be a shame if something should happen to it," just like his fellow Radical Texan, Tom DeLay said last week. now, should any asshat with a Ryder truck try to blow up a Federal courthouse, will Cornyn and DeLay regret their remarks ? will Coulter moan that they didn't go to the NYT ? most likely, they're paving the way for W's latest round of radical judicial nominees, by making it seem like there's an urgent need to replace people who follow the law with people who will follow the gospel of Radical Republicanism. tell me, why should "The Rule Of Law" only apply when Republicans like the outcome ? Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
-
WTF?
And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in -- engage in violence.
umm, idjit (Cornyn, not Mike)? the recent cases of violence against judges were completely a-political. Cornyn is talking out his ass here, for the benefit of all the arm-chair vigilantes out there in Wingnutville. he's saying "Hey, nice judiciary you got there. It'd be a shame if something should happen to it," just like his fellow Radical Texan, Tom DeLay said last week. now, should any asshat with a Ryder truck try to blow up a Federal courthouse, will Cornyn and DeLay regret their remarks ? will Coulter moan that they didn't go to the NYT ? most likely, they're paving the way for W's latest round of radical judicial nominees, by making it seem like there's an urgent need to replace people who follow the law with people who will follow the gospel of Radical Republicanism. tell me, why should "The Rule Of Law" only apply when Republicans like the outcome ? Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
You're full of shit Losinger. The left rips on judges constantly when they don't pass liberal muster (that is, stand ready to do the democrat's heavy lifting for them when they can't win an election) But does anyone blame the murder of judges on them? Hell no. But let the Republicans register some thoughts that badly need to be made, and little socialist wannabees like you associate them with terrorism and murder. WHat a fucking propagandist. The democratic party is so far out of touch with even the most basic constitutional principles this nation was founded upon that they think Jefferson was a Marxist. The republicans are correct, the judiciary is completely out of control and badly needs to be brought back under constitutional checks and balances. I hope to God the Republicans find the balls to do that and start impeaching some of these leftist bastards (or even some of the conservative ones). That is exactly why I have been voting for them. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
-
You're full of shit Losinger. The left rips on judges constantly when they don't pass liberal muster (that is, stand ready to do the democrat's heavy lifting for them when they can't win an election) But does anyone blame the murder of judges on them? Hell no. But let the Republicans register some thoughts that badly need to be made, and little socialist wannabees like you associate them with terrorism and murder. WHat a fucking propagandist. The democratic party is so far out of touch with even the most basic constitutional principles this nation was founded upon that they think Jefferson was a Marxist. The republicans are correct, the judiciary is completely out of control and badly needs to be brought back under constitutional checks and balances. I hope to God the Republicans find the balls to do that and start impeaching some of these leftist bastards (or even some of the conservative ones). That is exactly why I have been voting for them. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
eat me Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
-
JWood wrote: judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public IMO, decisions related to the life in the City are by definition political. For instance, condemning to Death Penalty or not is a political action. JWood wrote: objectively interpret How can a human interpretation be objective? :confused: whatever the side, politicians always go against judges when the decisions of the latter don't fit them, claiming they are persecuted/countered/manipulated by a politically motivated judicial branch. I don't see that as a clear sign of democracy. Separation of powers is the base of our democratic systems, attacking that is threatening the very fundations of everything we believe is good to organize a society.
Fold With Us! Chaos A.D. Disorder unleashed
K(arl) wrote: For instance, condemning to Death Penalty or not is a political action. Not when it is proscribed by law. K(arl) wrote: How can a human interpretation be objective? By not inventing meanings not associated with words in the law. recent Supreme Court decisions that reference "world opinion" are a case in point. We're governed by laws, not opinions and certainly not those of the "world". K(arl) wrote: whatever the side, politicians always go against judges when the decisions of the latter don't fit them, claiming they are persecuted/countered/manipulated by a politically motivated judicial branch. Not true. quote your sources. in the of Terri S. the law was ignored by the judges. K(arl) wrote: Separation of powers is the base of our democratic systems, attacking that is threatening the very fundations of everything we believe is good to organize a society. Checks and balances are the base, in the case of judges there is no balance as they have, in some meansure, been interpreting law instead of applying it. In many cases they are creating new law, which is not their perogative, and have been doing it since the 60s. Current discussions conducted by law makers towards reining in the judiciary are in fact the checks and balances in operation. K(arl) wrote: we believe I don't know who "we" might be but the only "we" I give a damn about is the US and we're governed by Constituitions, state and federal, plus laws enacted under the control of those constituitions. As stated earlier, judges have been ignoring the law and creating their own - unlawfully I might add. Mike K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
K(arl) wrote: For instance, condemning to Death Penalty or not is a political action. Not when it is proscribed by law. K(arl) wrote: How can a human interpretation be objective? By not inventing meanings not associated with words in the law. recent Supreme Court decisions that reference "world opinion" are a case in point. We're governed by laws, not opinions and certainly not those of the "world". K(arl) wrote: whatever the side, politicians always go against judges when the decisions of the latter don't fit them, claiming they are persecuted/countered/manipulated by a politically motivated judicial branch. Not true. quote your sources. in the of Terri S. the law was ignored by the judges. K(arl) wrote: Separation of powers is the base of our democratic systems, attacking that is threatening the very fundations of everything we believe is good to organize a society. Checks and balances are the base, in the case of judges there is no balance as they have, in some meansure, been interpreting law instead of applying it. In many cases they are creating new law, which is not their perogative, and have been doing it since the 60s. Current discussions conducted by law makers towards reining in the judiciary are in fact the checks and balances in operation. K(arl) wrote: we believe I don't know who "we" might be but the only "we" I give a damn about is the US and we're governed by Constituitions, state and federal, plus laws enacted under the control of those constituitions. As stated earlier, judges have been ignoring the law and creating their own - unlawfully I might add. Mike K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
Mike Gaskey wrote: the law was ignored by the judges citation, please. Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
-
JWood wrote: judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public IMO, decisions related to the life in the City are by definition political. For instance, condemning to Death Penalty or not is a political action. JWood wrote: objectively interpret How can a human interpretation be objective? :confused: whatever the side, politicians always go against judges when the decisions of the latter don't fit them, claiming they are persecuted/countered/manipulated by a politically motivated judicial branch. I don't see that as a clear sign of democracy. Separation of powers is the base of our democratic systems, attacking that is threatening the very fundations of everything we believe is good to organize a society.
Fold With Us! Chaos A.D. Disorder unleashed
K(arl) wrote: Separation of powers is the base of our democratic systems, attacking that is threatening the very fundations of everything we believe is good to organize a society. But it is the judiciary itself that is the most profound threat to the seperation of powers in the US. Given the power that the federal courts have grabbed over the last two centuries, the U.S. no longer even needs elected representatives, the courts are already thumbing their noses at the will of the people, and implementing what ever laws and regulations they think appropriate. They have nothing to fear from the elected representatives who are afraid to confront them and exercise the true powers they have under the constitution to control the courts. The Congress has absolute constitutional authority to fire ever single setting judge on the bench tommorow if they would merely stand up and do it. Nothing could be better for this country than that. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: the law was ignored by the judges citation, please. Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
Chris Losinger wrote: citation, please. There are laws in place that make murdering the handicapped punisable by death but since apparently no one in the judiciary chose to follow same, the following was inacted. SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. SEC. 2. PROCEDURE. Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted. SEC. 3. RELIEF. After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING. Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the
-
Chris Losinger wrote: citation, please. There are laws in place that make murdering the handicapped punisable by death but since apparently no one in the judiciary chose to follow same, the following was inacted. SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. SEC. 2. PROCEDURE. Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted. SEC. 3. RELIEF. After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING. Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the
Mike Gaskey wrote: Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. and so they did Mike Gaskey wrote: In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. and so they did Mike Gaskey wrote: After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. and the suit was found to be without merit. and therefore no "injunctive relief" was necessary. this is the law that was ignored? how was it ignored? they filed the suit, the judge looked at it and decided they didn't have a case (and then the USSC decided, for the 6th time, that they didn't have a case.) it's beyond foolish to think the people who wrote this Special One Time Only law didn't know what they were writing and somehow a Federal judge found a loophole in it. if they wanted to keep her alive, they could've simply written a law making it explicitly illegal to let her die. they wouldn't have violated state's rights or separation of powers or human decency any more than they did with the law they did write. and it would've been no different, in many respects, to the endless number of laws that get passed authorizing this or that park or monument or recognition of some athlete or long-dead war hero. they could've. they didn't. blame them. on a slightly different note: it's amusing to see how your Leaders have whipped you all into stiff peaks over the horrible judicial activism boogeyman just in time for the next round of judicial nominations. i expect all the Senators and radio talking heads will bring up Schiavo ten, maybe tweleve, times an hour. Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. and so they did Mike Gaskey wrote: In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. and so they did Mike Gaskey wrote: After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. and the suit was found to be without merit. and therefore no "injunctive relief" was necessary. this is the law that was ignored? how was it ignored? they filed the suit, the judge looked at it and decided they didn't have a case (and then the USSC decided, for the 6th time, that they didn't have a case.) it's beyond foolish to think the people who wrote this Special One Time Only law didn't know what they were writing and somehow a Federal judge found a loophole in it. if they wanted to keep her alive, they could've simply written a law making it explicitly illegal to let her die. they wouldn't have violated state's rights or separation of powers or human decency any more than they did with the law they did write. and it would've been no different, in many respects, to the endless number of laws that get passed authorizing this or that park or monument or recognition of some athlete or long-dead war hero. they could've. they didn't. blame them. on a slightly different note: it's amusing to see how your Leaders have whipped you all into stiff peaks over the horrible judicial activism boogeyman just in time for the next round of judicial nominations. i expect all the Senators and radio talking heads will bring up Schiavo ten, maybe tweleve, times an hour. Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
Chris Losinger wrote: i expect all the Senators and radio talking heads will bring up Schiavo ten, maybe tweleve, times an hour. Whoa, wait a minute. Those Saintly Republicans would *never* do something like that. I mean, every single one of them, bless their souls, is practially speaking for *god* (thru gwb of course). Who knew all you had to do to be so saintly was put an (R) next to your name? Sincerely, Billy Bible Basher (R-CA) i hope it's obvious that I'm being sarcastic I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. and so they did Mike Gaskey wrote: In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. and so they did Mike Gaskey wrote: After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. and the suit was found to be without merit. and therefore no "injunctive relief" was necessary. this is the law that was ignored? how was it ignored? they filed the suit, the judge looked at it and decided they didn't have a case (and then the USSC decided, for the 6th time, that they didn't have a case.) it's beyond foolish to think the people who wrote this Special One Time Only law didn't know what they were writing and somehow a Federal judge found a loophole in it. if they wanted to keep her alive, they could've simply written a law making it explicitly illegal to let her die. they wouldn't have violated state's rights or separation of powers or human decency any more than they did with the law they did write. and it would've been no different, in many respects, to the endless number of laws that get passed authorizing this or that park or monument or recognition of some athlete or long-dead war hero. they could've. they didn't. blame them. on a slightly different note: it's amusing to see how your Leaders have whipped you all into stiff peaks over the horrible judicial activism boogeyman just in time for the next round of judicial nominations. i expect all the Senators and radio talking heads will bring up Schiavo ten, maybe tweleve, times an hour. Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
Chris Losinger wrote: somehow a Federal judge found a loophole in it you made my point, thanks. Chris Losinger wrote: they could've simply written a law making it explicitly illegal to let her die the law is on the books, murder remains illegal. starving someone to death is murder regardless of efforts to rationalize it. Chris Losinger wrote: judicial activism boogeyman just in time for the next round of judicial nominations. then Terri will not have been murdered died in vain. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
You're full of shit Losinger. The left rips on judges constantly when they don't pass liberal muster (that is, stand ready to do the democrat's heavy lifting for them when they can't win an election) But does anyone blame the murder of judges on them? Hell no. But let the Republicans register some thoughts that badly need to be made, and little socialist wannabees like you associate them with terrorism and murder. WHat a fucking propagandist. The democratic party is so far out of touch with even the most basic constitutional principles this nation was founded upon that they think Jefferson was a Marxist. The republicans are correct, the judiciary is completely out of control and badly needs to be brought back under constitutional checks and balances. I hope to God the Republicans find the balls to do that and start impeaching some of these leftist bastards (or even some of the conservative ones). That is exactly why I have been voting for them. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
Stan Shannon wrote: You're full of sh*t Losinger. No Stan, YOU are the one who's full of shit. You'll settle down as soon as you get your good nice saintly republicunt judges in place. See, you're not worried about judicial activism (or any other abuse of power). I guarantee if it was republicans doing the exact same things you see the democrats doing, we would not hear you whining about it. To prove that, I'm going to predict that in response to this, you'll write something along the lines of "well if we had republicans doing it now, it wouldn't be bad because the democrats have been doing it for so long we need to reverse things". You're just like a 4 year old. Mommy!!!!! I hit Danny and he hit me back! WAHHH!!! I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
-
WTF?
And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in -- engage in violence.
umm, idjit (Cornyn, not Mike)? the recent cases of violence against judges were completely a-political. Cornyn is talking out his ass here, for the benefit of all the arm-chair vigilantes out there in Wingnutville. he's saying "Hey, nice judiciary you got there. It'd be a shame if something should happen to it," just like his fellow Radical Texan, Tom DeLay said last week. now, should any asshat with a Ryder truck try to blow up a Federal courthouse, will Cornyn and DeLay regret their remarks ? will Coulter moan that they didn't go to the NYT ? most likely, they're paving the way for W's latest round of radical judicial nominees, by making it seem like there's an urgent need to replace people who follow the law with people who will follow the gospel of Radical Republicanism. tell me, why should "The Rule Of Law" only apply when Republicans like the outcome ? Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
Chris Losinger wrote: And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in -- engage in violence. When I was reading that I was thinking more about Middle Eastern terrorists and their use of violence. Of course, talking about violent cause-and-effect in regards to "judicial activism" means that we should consider limiting the influence of the judges, but talking about violent cause-and-effect in regards to international terrorists means that you are "soft on terrorism". Not that I'm arguing for some Chomskyesque "it's all the West's fault" idea here, just pointing out the double standard Republicans would like to use. Maybe democrats should start accusing Cornyn of being soft on judge killers. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^] It was very nice of our loving Designer to design an immune system to protect us from the deadly diseases He designed.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: somehow a Federal judge found a loophole in it you made my point, thanks. Chris Losinger wrote: they could've simply written a law making it explicitly illegal to let her die the law is on the books, murder remains illegal. starving someone to death is murder regardless of efforts to rationalize it. Chris Losinger wrote: judicial activism boogeyman just in time for the next round of judicial nominations. then Terri will not have been murdered died in vain. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
Mike Gaskey wrote: you made my point, thanks really? you really think that's what happened ? you think the guys who wrote that law are so fucking stupid that they just couldn't write the law so that they'd get the result they (want you to think they) wanted ? a bunch of Congressmen and their staffs just couldn't find a way to get down on paper what they really meant - and you trust them more than you trust judges ? or maybe, they did get the result they wanted: they got The Base all frantic and frenzied. remember, Tom DeLay (Hero Of The Stupid), called Shiavo a gift from God that would allow the Republicans to highlight their awful plight. see how she's working for them? ghouls. Mike Gaskey wrote: the law is on the books, murder remains illegal. starving someone to death is murder regardless of efforts to rationalize it. tell it to da judge Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
-
Chris Losinger wrote: somehow a Federal judge found a loophole in it you made my point, thanks. Chris Losinger wrote: they could've simply written a law making it explicitly illegal to let her die the law is on the books, murder remains illegal. starving someone to death is murder regardless of efforts to rationalize it. Chris Losinger wrote: judicial activism boogeyman just in time for the next round of judicial nominations. then Terri will not have been murdered died in vain. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
Mike Gaskey wrote: the law is on the books, murder remains illegal. starving someone to death is murder regardless of efforts to rationalize it. So I am just curious.... is everyone that starves to death murdered? Or is it just the ones who can afford healthcare that are considered to be murdered? :~ Lets forget the fact that Terri was in this trouble because of an eating disorder for right now. -J
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun). -Eddie Izzard
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: the law is on the books, murder remains illegal. starving someone to death is murder regardless of efforts to rationalize it. So I am just curious.... is everyone that starves to death murdered? Or is it just the ones who can afford healthcare that are considered to be murdered? :~ Lets forget the fact that Terri was in this trouble because of an eating disorder for right now. -J
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun). -Eddie Izzard
jasontg wrote: is everyone that starves to death murdered? well, it can't be everyone[^] Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: the law is on the books, murder remains illegal. starving someone to death is murder regardless of efforts to rationalize it. So I am just curious.... is everyone that starves to death murdered? Or is it just the ones who can afford healthcare that are considered to be murdered? :~ Lets forget the fact that Terri was in this trouble because of an eating disorder for right now. -J
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun). -Eddie Izzard
jasontg wrote: So I am just curious.... is everyone that starves to death murdered? Or is it just the ones who can afford healthcare that are considered to be murdered? What? F**k the poor, you frigging hippy. Poor people aren't really people anyway. They're like the outdoor pets you bathe infrequently, have marginal attachment to, and when they encounter a giant bear and don't come home for dinner anymore, you shrug and start humming, "Born freeeeee... freeee as the wind blows.... freeee as the grass grows...." For a real world example, just ask New York how upset they were when Giuliani had all the homeless people killed and turned into hot dog meat.
-
jasontg wrote: is everyone that starves to death murdered? well, it can't be everyone[^] Image Toolkits | Image Processing | Cleek
I don't know what your problem is Chris. Just listen to all this good news! From the article: By one count, 60 percent of rural residents and 20 percent of urban dwellers have access only to contaminated water. The country's sewer systems are in disarray. 80% of the country has access to water! If his wife is fortunate enough to find a can of Isomil, the nutritional supplement that doctors recommend, she pays $7 for it. "But the lady in the next bed said she just paid $10," said Suad Ahmed A victory for the free market! "The people are astonished," said Khalil M. Mehdi, who directs the Nutrition Research Institute at the Health Ministry. Astonished at the peace and happiness that has entered their lives now that Saddam is gone! Horray for everything!
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: the law is on the books, murder remains illegal. starving someone to death is murder regardless of efforts to rationalize it. So I am just curious.... is everyone that starves to death murdered? Or is it just the ones who can afford healthcare that are considered to be murdered? :~ Lets forget the fact that Terri was in this trouble because of an eating disorder for right now. -J
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun). -Eddie Izzard
jasontg wrote: Or is it just the ones who can afford healthcare that are considered to be murdered? It is the ones who had a husband with a common law wife and two children and a million dollar plus settlement (medical malpractice) and a set of parents and siblings who were willing to care for her, yet chose to murder her by dening food and water because "she" wouldn't want to live that way. of course he only remembered her wish fours years later an then only after the settlement. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: You're full of sh*t Losinger. No Stan, YOU are the one who's full of shit. You'll settle down as soon as you get your good nice saintly republicunt judges in place. See, you're not worried about judicial activism (or any other abuse of power). I guarantee if it was republicans doing the exact same things you see the democrats doing, we would not hear you whining about it. To prove that, I'm going to predict that in response to this, you'll write something along the lines of "well if we had republicans doing it now, it wouldn't be bad because the democrats have been doing it for so long we need to reverse things". You're just like a 4 year old. Mommy!!!!! I hit Danny and he hit me back! WAHHH!!! I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
well if we had republicans doing it now, it wouldn't be bad because the democrats have been doing it for so long we need to reverse things... :omg: Wait a minute... damn, you're good... Actually, the truth is that a blind man can see that the courts are out of control. The Courts are currently doing what the left cannot get done democratically. They represent the only way the left has of forcing its will upon those of us who do not agree with it. If things were reveresed, if Scalia was, in fact, implementing a conservative political agenda via the courts as the democrats won election after election, I doubt that you would be all that sanguine about it. The courts were never intended to be an extra-democratic political body, they are merely there to ensure that the law reflects the constitutional will of the people, not to set themselves up as a force to defeat the will of the people. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."