You Might Be A Fake Conservative if...

Activist Judges Wanted: Apply At GOP.Com.

from JoeUser Forums

a.  you stay up all night with a bunch of your hypocrite associates to pass a law that violates the balance of powers.

b. you vote for a law that is in direct opposition to the constitution by interfering with the rights of the several states (well actually a single state..but for the 2nd time in five years).

c. you go out of your way to help enact a law that permits the federal government to impose itself into an individual family's affairs and cater to the the religious beliefs of your political supporters and force their so-called moral values on a married couple.  

d. you are a former governor of texas who routinely rejected appeals of citizens facing execution--despite the fact that your state has a horrendous record of railroading defendants in capital cases--and can say this without being struck dead on the spot: "In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life," President Bush said in a statement after signing the bill.

e. you've been whining for years about activist judges but then go to incredible lengths in hopes of finding one who will validate all the abuses listed above.

6,146 views 40 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think there were a sizable number of Democrats who voted for the bill as well.  Does that make them 'fake liberals'?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Isn't it interesting that the Governor of Florida is President Bush's brother?
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Isn't it interesting that the Governor of Florida is President Bush's brother?

Just an accident of birth.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Their births were accidental? That could explain a lot.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Their births were accidental? That could explain a lot.

So does you lobotomy, but that is a different blog.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are too smart for an article like this, Kingbee. Were the Conservative abolitionists before the Civil War fakes when they tried to impose an end of slavery? Was Roe v. Wade an imposition of Federal power when MOST states wanted to leave their bans on abortion in place? You guys can obviously dish out "moral" imposition, so can't you take them?

There's nothing "fake" about this. The state of Florida is allowing someone who abandoned his spouse ten years ago to now force her family to watch her starve to death. It's heinous, and barbaric. If the Federal government can step in and tell states they have to let women have abortions, it's asinine to say that they can't make legislation preventing acts like this.

You might be a fake Liberal if you suddenly get all pissed about state's rights when Liberalism has a century-old history of walking all over them.

sheesh. You didn't think this one through, huh?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I like the bit about "activist judges." I think you should read that one again, Baker.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
You might be a fake liberal if you spend your time pointing out the hypocrisy of others, instead of defending the lives of the most helpless among us.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Myrrander: Yes, I often talk about activist judges. I think there is a shade of activism involved in this as well.

Imagine walking into an immigration hearing and telling the judge that "Sure, I have been living with another woman for ten years and have a family elsewhere, BUT that is really my wife and I should be allowed to stay..."

You'd be laughed out of court. Because this is a "right to die" case, though, all such eccentricities are apparently overlooked in the face of the "issues"... Heard that one before?

These aren't activist judges trying to keep her from being killed. These are legislators trying to pass a law to confront an injustice they see playing out in front of them.

That was Liberal chic' when in the 1960's, or 1860's. Now, though, it is somehow "obstructionist" to protect the rights of handicapped people who are being discarded like garbage.


Evidently Kingbee and Myrr don't have a problem with judges trying to be legislators, but woe unto the legislator that tries to be a legislator...
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I mean gah, you guys can overlook judges basically acting as legislators by the impossibly loose interpretations of the Constitution we've seen, and yet when legislators pass a law, Oh My!! how dare they?!!!??!?!?

Legislators make law.

Judges interperate law.

So, apparently, judges trying to impose a new definition of "life" on all the rest of us through such a decision is okay, bypassing the legislative branch entirely, but legislators passing a law against such a thing isn't.

*boggle*...
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Bakerstreet: Very insightful.

I consider myself generally pro-death on most issues. But in this one, the parents should be the ones deciding. The "husband" has clearly moved on. I don't understand why the parents don't have the right to keep her alive? Why are the liberals clamouring for her death?

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why are the liberals clamouring for her death?


That's what I wonder too. Sure, if she was in tremendous pain, I'd understand their desire to have her "euthanized" (amazing how euthanasia doesn't require one's consent these days), but they themselves have said that she's too dead to feel anything, so why rush her death?

I personally think it's because of their dislike for Republicans and Bush. It's a political tool.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Were the Conservative abolitionists before the Civil War fakes when they tried to impose an end of slavery? Was Roe v. Wade an imposition of Federal power when MOST states wanted to leave their bans on abortion in place? You guys can obviously dish out "moral" imposition, so can't you take them?


were there conservative (federalist) abolitionists? to a certain point, i guess lincoln might qualify looking at things from our vantage point some 140 years in the future although i doubt his contemporaneous critics thought of him in that way.

roe v wade is obviously an imposition of federal power over that of the states. i doubt i need explain to you the difference between an interpretation of the constitution (whether we agree or disagree as to it being a correct interpretation isnt important is it?) and convening a session of congress to push through a law intended to subvert the power of a state and its courts to regulate matters reserved to it by the constitution as well as the federal judiciary which has determined that to be the case in this matter.

despite the tragic circumstances involved--or perhaps more importantly because of them--this is now a situation in which the executive branch and the congress are assuming to themselves powers expressly forbidden them by the constitution (as well as overriding the power of the judiciary) at the expense of individual rights.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think there were a sizable number of Democrats who voted for the bill as well. Does that make them 'fake liberals'


nawwww. yall have convinced me they're out to turn this into the united socialist states of america so i expect it from them.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
the Governor of Florida is President Bush's brother?


Just an accident of birth


and ghwbush? another accident? what are the odds of that happening again?

considering the abuses florida has suffered at the hands of the bush dynasty, perhaps it should be renamed to something more appropriate...bushmorassia perhaps? come to think of it, it's the perfect place to be the new capitol of the united stalinist states of america--complete with the kind of statues they have in pyongyang of the entire dynasty.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
So does you lobotomy, but that is a different blog


rather insensitive response considering the larger topic of discussion doncha think doc?
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I like the bit about "activist judges.


These are legislators trying to pass a law to confront an injustice they see playing out in front of them.



in fact, these are legislators and a president hoping to elicit the help of a federal judge to help them out. there is a more than a little bit of bizarre symmetry involved in the fact that this is happening during 'holy week'; in effect, the temple wants to dump this one into pilate's hands.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Imagine walking into an immigration hearing and telling the judge that "Sure, I have been living with another woman for ten years and have a family elsewhere, BUT that is really my wife and I should be allowed to stay..."


But in this one, the parents should be the ones deciding. The "husband" has clearly moved on. I don't understand why the parents don't have the right to keep her alive? Why are the liberals clamouring for her death?


the husband--before clearly moving on (which isnt the case at all or we wouldnt be discussing it now)--loses standing to act on his wife's behalf because what? he finally accepted what every doctor involved had been telling him for four years, during which he did all he could do for his wife medically and legally (including paying for procedures her parents would have passed on as being too expensive)?

in the fifteen years he's been responsible for her care, she has never experienced a single bedsore. that speaks volumes about him and the hospice in which she's been cared for (if either of you have any experience with a bedridden invalid relative, you know just how remarkable that is).

since they decided to make this their crusade, his wife's parents have made wild and irresponsible charges and youre buying into them.

baker--with all due respect--your analogy is horribly flawed. this is nothing at all similar to what you've proposed.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
You might be a fake liberal if you spend your time pointing out the hypocrisy of others, instead of defending the lives of the most helpless among us.


i saved this one for last. if you truly believe that the president and congress are defending the lives of anyone, your sadly misperceiving what's goin on here.

you would be correct if they'd shown any interest in the plight of others who have been allowed to die in such a barbaric and cruel manner. they didn't.

nor are they addressing the cause of those--other than ms schiavo--who will be forced to die this way today. or tomorrow. or next week. or next year.

they've latched onto to this woman's tragedy in order to make points with an issue group to whom they're indebted and--this is where the hypocrisy comes in--for whom they're unwilling to risk their offices.

if there was an ounce of humanity shared by these pharisees, they woulda stayed the hell outta what is ultimately the most awful decision one person has to make for another. or failing that, they would have long ago did something to provide those making the decision with a means by which to render it a lot less cruel.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
kingbee-- with all due respect, I don't seen anything in your response that refutes it. How, after ten years in another relationship, two kids, a decade of distraction, is this guy still her "guardian"? Can you imagine any other circumstance where a man can walk away from his wife for ten years and still be considered the "concerned husband"?

Hell no. The only difference here is this woman cannot speak for herself. The parents were smacked down by the courts because they supposedly didn't have the right to sue for divorce for her. So, who the hell is going to? At what point does this man "move on" and relinquish the control?

***

As for your idea of lawmaking, you are boggling my mind. Following your rationale, there'd never be any need for a Legislature. All that we need is in the COnstitution, courts to interperet it, and an executive branch to enforce it.

The reality, however, is we have a Legislative branch whose sole purpose is to respond to the needs of the American people by making law. I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that legislators making law is overstepping their bounds.

**

The states rights argument is morbidly flawed. Go back and look at the civil rights movement. This wasn't just enforcement of "The Constitution", or federal court decisions, the Legislative branch made Federal laws that gave the ideals that had been set forth teeth.

Why do we need Federal civil rights law at all then? Because you don't arrest someone and charge them with violating the Constitution. People violate LAWS. On the grand scale, the courts interpret the spirit of the Constitution, sure, but the real enforcable mandate comes from the legislative branch in the form of law.

So, in this situation, the Legislators, on both sides of the aisle, saw a gaping hole in Constitutional interpretation. They saw that the lack of dictate in this situation could lead to the deaths of innocent people. In response, they made legislation, just like they did in the civil war era, just as they did in the Great Depression, just as they did in civil rights era.

Sure, there will be backward places that want to rebel. The national guard had to be called in to enforce civil rights LAWS, not the COnstitution. This case, in my opinion, is no different.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Now, though, it is somehow "obstructionist" to protect the rights of handicapped people who are being discarded like garbage.

nobody's rights are being protected--least of all the handicapped.  if you want to discuss who dumped the handicapped out into america's streets during the 70s and 80s--i'm up for it. 

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
How, after ten years in another relationship, two kids, a decade of distraction, is this guy still her "guardian"? Can you imagine any other circumstance where a man can walk away from his wife for ten years and still be considered the "concerned husband"?


what would be his motivation for remaining involved? to maintain control? to kill her? do you consider mr yates a better husband because he hasnt remarried yet?

are you trying to say that a man cannot act in his parent's best interests because he's married and 'moved on'?

i know former spouses, now divorced, who would be able to act with integrity to ensure the wishes of their former partners would be realized.

what makes him such a monster (other than the schindlers' list of scary tales?)
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
The reality, however, is we have a Legislative branch whose sole purpose is to respond to the needs of the American people by making law. I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that legislators making law is overstepping their bounds.


remind me of another instance in which the congress met to enact a law that focused on the situation of a single person rather than addressing the issue affecting others in identical situations (other than addressing issues of citizenship).
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
"what would be his motivation for remaining involved?"


I have no idea. I can't fathom why someone who believes his wife to be brain dead, and who has since started a new family, would spend time and effort to rip his previous wife away from her family and starve her to death. The "humanity" argument is silly at best, if he truly believes she is already brain dead.

"are you trying to say that a man cannot act in his parent's best interests because he's married and 'moved on'? "


A man doesn't move out and marry new parents. The US, at this point, doesn't recognize polygamy. He is at the very least a common law father and spouse to this other woman, and yet steadfastly retains his "guardianship" over Terri Schiavo as if she were some peice of real estate he "manage".

"what makes him such a monster (other than the schindlers' list of scary tales?)"


The fact that his life is devoted to killing his former spouse.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
wolfson--the attorney ad litem for ms schiavo--agrees with the courts that it's not unreasonable to believe that her husband is acting in accordance with her instructions and that her parents are acting in opposition to them