Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Quote:

I was trying to point out that if you complain about the govt doing something,then you should hold that same standard to EVERY admin,not just the one you dislike.

Mysteryman-Absolutely. It just happened that I had gotten caught up in this particular case.

Another thing. I think that I have become far more vocal on political issues since A2K. I always had my own personal political thoughts, but usually kept them to myself. Until fairly recently, I only frequented the political threads once in awhile. A2K has created a monster!

0 Replies

I think voters have demonstrated they have short memories......or that they're more motivated by recent events than they are by those from the past. However, I think the polls reveal that the voters are beginning to see the whole picture. The evangelicals are demanding their favors and are intent on manipulating the Constitution and the law in order to get them.

I think our memories will be keen enough as Frist's "nuclear option" is considered next month. It will be a close vote and letters to Congressmen will play a vital role in the outcome of that vote. How far out on a limb will congressmen and women be to destroy the only check left on the abuses of the majority? Surely they're aware that the shoe can be on the other foot someday soon and destroying the power of the minority party, today will not be good for them tomorrow........especially if the voters are threatening to return the minority to the majority in 08.

I sense a shift in the political winds. Bush wasn't that popular when re-elected. Remember how surprised he looked after that long election night? He had expected to lose. I think we may be, and hopefully we are, seeing the beginning of the snow ball. If so, it will be encouraging to see it develop some speed. I've been so discouraged with the way voters have seemed to ignore the dangerous threats to our civil rights and rule of law.

Isn't it funny that now the liberals can point to the value of the rule of law.......my my, the shoe-on-the-other-foot phenomenon should be kept in mind by politicians who need to be re-elected.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

I haven't been on this site that long but I would appreciate a bit of advice. Is it compulsory to be sarcastic or is it optional? Just wondering.

Oh, no, goodfielder. You should never be sarcastic on this site.

0 Replies

Phoenix
Phoenix, after reading the news article, I did some checking to learn more about Joseph Farah's WorldNetDaily. I found the following on Media Matters.---BBB

0 Replies

STATEMENT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO
ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT TO
DENY CERTIORARI IN THE CASE OF
ELIAN GONZALEZ

WASHINGTON, DC -- The United States Supreme Court today declined to accept for review the case of Elian Gonzalez. The Court's action means that the injunction put in place by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals will expire at 4:00 PM eastern time today, and Elian Gonzalez will be permitted to depart the U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno issued the following statement:

"I am very pleased that the Supreme Court has declined to review the case of Elian Gonzalez. The law has provided a process, and this little boy now knows that he can remain with his father. All involved have had an opportunity to make their case--all the way to the highest court in the land. I hope that everyone will accept the Supreme Court's decision and join me in wishing this family, and this special little boy, well."

How do you figure the government ignored the courts?

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

How do you figure the government ignored the courts?

And on top of that, didn't Elian Gonzalez cross an international border, and didn't this automatically make his case a federal one? On the face of it, I don't see how the Gonzalez case is comparable with the Schiavo case in the federal vs. states rights dimension.

0 Replies

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/05.03.27.SchiavoRift-X.gif

0 Replies

Quote:

Attorney: Michael Schiavo Looks 'Peaceful, Euphoric'
by Scott Ott

(2005-03-29) -- Attorney George Felos today said that his client, Michael Schiavo, entered the 11th day of depriving his wife of food and water looking peaceful and "as beautiful as I've seen him in years."

"Death by dehydration is not the awful specter that so-called 'pro-lifers' have portrayed it to be," said Mr. Felos as he stood outside of Terri Schiavo's Florida hospice. "I was actually in the room with the Schiavos. Michael looked very peaceful. He looked calm. I saw no evidence of any bodily discomfort whatsoever, even though he's not receiving morphine."

"As Terri gets closer to death," Mr. Felos added, "her husband's face has actually taken on an almost euphoric appearance."

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

STATEMENT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO
ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT TO
DENY CERTIORARI IN THE CASE OF
ELIAN GONZALEZ

WASHINGTON, DC -- The United States Supreme Court today declined to accept for review the case of Elian Gonzalez. The Court's action means that the injunction put in place by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals will expire at 4:00 PM eastern time today, and Elian Gonzalez will be permitted to depart the U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno issued the following statement:

"I am very pleased that the Supreme Court has declined to review the case of Elian Gonzalez. The law has provided a process, and this little boy now knows that he can remain with his father. All involved have had an opportunity to make their case--all the way to the highest court in the land. I hope that everyone will accept the Supreme Court's decision and join me in wishing this family, and this special little boy, well."

How do you figure the government ignored the courts?

Simple,the FL family court ruled that THEY had jurisdiction,and the AG ignored that ruling.
It thenwent to the 11th circuit court,and they also ruled AGAINST the govt.
The govt then sent in "federal troops" to seize him,BEFORE the circuit court ruling expired.
That showed that they had no concern for court decisions that went against them.
Once the INS had seized Elian,they didnt care about nor did they pay any attention,to the rulings.
By seizing him in a prdawn raid,they showed that the decision of the courts meant nothing.

0 Replies

..they showed that the decision of the courts meant nothing.

That's your interpretation. I'm looking at the final result...which in hindsight buttresses the Sciavo case, and says as does Reno's letter... let the courts decide. If Sciavo's case had merit it would be before the supreme Court.

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

..they showed that the decision of the courts meant nothing.

That's your interpretation. I'm looking at the final result...which in hindsight buttresses the Sciavo case, and says as does Reno's letter... let the courts decide. If Sciavo's case had merit it would be before the supreme Court.

1. The Supreme Court most certainly does not hear every case with merit. Usually there have to be legal issues of federal interest involved.
2. I must say I admire your faith in mankind, considering that history is filled with legal decisions we now regard as abhorrent.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I must say I admire your faith in mankind, considering that history is filled with legal decisions we now regard as abhorrent.

Thank you, I take it as a compliment. The courts are a living , growing will of the people. They reflect the common concensus at any particular time. The fact that abhorrent legal decisions are laced throughout our history does not diminish my faith in the judicial system.

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I must say I admire your faith in mankind, considering that history is filled with legal decisions we now regard as abhorrent.

Thank you, I take it as a compliment. The courts are a living , growing will of the people. They reflect the common concensus at any particular time. The fact that abhorrent legal decisions are laced throughout our history does not diminish my faith in the judicial system.

Nor mine, but I wouldn't cite a judicial decision, including one not to hear a case, as proof that one side is in the right.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

.. as proof that one side is in the right.

I didn't offer it as proof that either side is right. I offered it as proof that phoenix wasn't hypocritical when you noted..."Why was it ok for the govt to ignore the courts then,but not ok for them to do it now?"

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

Simple,the FL family court ruled that THEY had jurisdiction,and the AG ignored that ruling.
It thenwent to the 11th circuit court,and they also ruled AGAINST the govt.
The govt then sent in "federal troops" to seize him,BEFORE the circuit court ruling expired.
That showed that they had no concern for court decisions that went against them.
Once the INS had seized Elian,they didnt care about nor did they pay any attention,to the rulings.
By seizing him in a prdawn raid,they showed that the decision of the courts meant nothing.

Wow.. am I reading this right? Are you really just making up what you think the courts ruled? The Florida court didn't rule that they had jurisdiction. As near as I can tell the only thing the Florida court did was give temporary custody to Lasaro and family. The Florida court ruling was suspect and it violated the Federal law that gives the rules of immigration to the Fed govt.

In late March, US District court sided with the INS and ruled that they could send Elian back to Cuba. It was appealed to the 11th Circuit.

The 11th circuit did NOT rule against the govt. The 11th Circuit ultimately sided with the govt that the INS had the authority to decide Elian's fate. The 11th circuit only ruled that Elian couldn't leave the country until the end of appeals.

After the 11th circuit court ruled that Elian couldn't leave until the appeal was finished and with Elian's father in the country and unable to leave until the appeals had ended, there was no reason not to allow Elian to be with his father. The family in Florida promised to turn him over then refused to. After several failed attempts to negotiate the peaceful return of Elian, the INS acted to take him in late April.

After Elian was reunited with is father, the 11th circuit stated that there was no evidence that Lasaro should have custody and the INS acted within its power.

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I must say I admire your faith in mankind, considering that history is filled with legal decisions we now regard as abhorrent.

Thank you, I take it as a compliment. The courts are a living , growing will of the people. They reflect the common concensus at any particular time. The fact that abhorrent legal decisions are laced throughout our history does not diminish my faith in the judicial system.

This is blatantly false.
The courts decide on the LAW,not "common consensus.
The Federal courts,including the Supreme Court,rule on the Constitution,not "common consensus"

If they ruled based on that,then slavery would still be legal,segregation would still be legal,there would be nobody on death row because they would all be executed,roe v wade would have been overturned(and it should be).

There are many examples where the court has gone AGAINST "commojn consensus",because the law stated something different then what the consensus wanted.

0 Replies

MM, you must have missed out on the recent decisions ... apparently, the Supreme Court takes the pulse of the people, and if that isn't enough, will often consult sources outside of the U.S.A. to figure out which way to rule.

0 Replies

The courts interpret the LAW. This interpretation can be and is affected by contemporary social standards.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

MM, you must have missed out on the recent decisions ... apparently, the Supreme Court takes the pulse of the people, and if that isn't enough, will often consult sources outside of the U.S.A. to figure out which way to rule.

And they are NOT supposed to do that!
Their job is to interpret law based on our constitution,NOT foreign law or public opinion.
What foreign law says does NOT apply to our laws and constitution,and it never should.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
MM, you must have missed out on the recent decisions ... apparently, the Supreme Court takes the pulse of the people, and if that isn't enough, will often consult sources outside of the U.S.A. to figure out which way to rule.

And they are NOT supposed to do that!
....

Agreed.

0 Replies

Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know