Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Terri Schiavo and the separation of powers
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 48 (192560)
03-19-2005 3:49 PM


This is nothing less than a power grab by the neocons in Congress. Last night, the SCOTUS rejected an appeal from Congress to overrule the Florida courts. The fact that Congress is still trying to overrule the courts shows that they want nothing less than to erase the separation of powers.
If Congress is successful here, we can all kiss our civil rights goodbye.
EDITED to correct spelling in the title. Just noticed the error.
This message has been edited by berberry, 03-20-2005 12:45 AM

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 03-19-2005 9:13 PM berberry has replied
 Message 4 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-19-2005 11:24 PM berberry has not replied
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 03-20-2005 3:31 AM berberry has not replied
 Message 39 by 1.61803, posted 03-25-2005 4:17 PM berberry has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 48 (192634)
03-19-2005 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by jar
03-19-2005 9:13 PM


Exactly, jar. This is unprecedented on so many levels. In addition to what I mentioned earlier, the original appeal to SCOTUS last night was a bill-of-attainder, no? It applied to one specific person. Perhaps someone who knows more about the law can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just the type of bill that is precluded by the constitution?
Any further legislation would also violate the bill-of-attainder provision, wouldn't it?

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 03-19-2005 9:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 03-20-2005 11:25 AM berberry has not replied
 Message 26 by tsig, posted 03-23-2005 2:37 AM berberry has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 48 (192944)
03-21-2005 1:55 AM


And another thing...
There is no end to the hypocrisy of the republicans (and, to be fair, many democrats) on this issue. Until now, haven't they been all about "protecting" marriage? Now, they are forced to use the "logic" that Terri left no written living will, even though every court and every judge who has heard this case has been satisfied that Terri did make her wishes known to her husband and friends. If we assume that her wishes are not known, then according to the marital contract between her and her husband it must be left to her husband (either as next-of-kin or legal guardian - which is it, I'm not sure) to make decisions for her.
Okay then, where is the "protection" of marriage? The bigoted morons in Congress seem to have found this particular marital contract to be most inconvenient and thus they wish to overrule it. Giving Terri's parents legal guardianship of her will nullify her legal marriage to her husband, won't it?
So what happened to "protecting" marriage?

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by coffee_addict, posted 03-21-2005 2:24 AM berberry has replied
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2005 5:02 AM berberry has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 48 (192957)
03-21-2005 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by coffee_addict
03-21-2005 2:24 AM


Re: Just bumping some old thoughts
Thank you, Lam. I knew about a few of those but not nearly all of them. Nice to have it all in one handy list.
This is absolutely lovely. And to think, it would have been just as on-topic in the humor thread.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by coffee_addict, posted 03-21-2005 2:24 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 48 (193090)
03-21-2005 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Silent H
03-21-2005 3:03 PM


Re: Bush rushes to save a life!
holmes asks:
quote:
If it is really true that Bush signed a law allowing hospitals to unhook patients over the wishes of relatives, in order to save money, why is no one hammering on this in the media?
They are, although not very loudly. I've heard this on both CNN and MSNBC today, so at least it isn't being ignored entirely. In fact, MSNBC went so far as to show examples of the Texas law being applied in cases as recently as last week, where feeding tubes were disconnected. It's just one more example of right-wing hypocrisy.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2005 3:03 PM Silent H has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 48 (194439)
03-25-2005 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by tsig
03-23-2005 2:37 AM


bill of attainder?
DHA writes me:
quote:
A bill-of-attainder is a bill that historically was used to ataint an indvidual. Generally he was to be executed and all his property was confiscated by the government(crown). It usally applied to all his relatives.
I'm sorry I missed this at the time you posted it. I am aware of the historical use of these bills, but according to findlaw.com:
The prohibition embodied in this clause is not to be strictly and narrowly construed in the context of traditional forms but is to be interpreted in accordance with the designs of the framers so as to preclude trial by legislature, a violation of the separation of powers concept.
By that, I would take it that the broader view of a bill of attainder would include acts such as this one of the Congress, in that it does amount to trial by legislature.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by tsig, posted 03-23-2005 2:37 AM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by tsig, posted 03-25-2005 3:53 PM berberry has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024