« Midweek - NSFW | Main | Butt Out, Vatican »

March 31, 2005

Comments

Jason

I almost "always" comment civilly.

I am not much concern with the courts ordering Terri to die. In their unquestionable decision they found that she had wanted to die, (and court decisions are never wrong... only court procedures are appealed). As it is, that is the judicial system we are stuck with and have been stuck with for decades, no change there.

I am also not much concerned with the religious right getting the GOP to ask the Federal courts to look into the case. Which I considered a minor error only on a political level. Congress had the power to ask the Federal Judiciary to look into the case, they did and didn't see any errors in court procedures, (they did not rule what Congress did specifically as unconstitutional). Except for the bill the state Congress in Florida passed on the matter, which was ruled unconsitutional.

You still seem to boldly assume that the Judiciary was standing up for the Constitution in the matter. Your quote;

"We now know that the Judiciary CAN protect the
Constitution."

I would claim that that was not their intentions. It was only a side benefit in this one situation. The decisions they made were based on insuring they continue to have unquestionable powers in factual judgements, and continue to have the power to control the direction this country takes in areas that were never directed for them to even decide, as based upon the Constitution. It is a power game and they will fight to insure they keep the power over the Legs and Exec Branches. If it benefits them to claim the Constitution says so, then they will base decisions on that when it suits their continued efforts to keep power. If they must cite foreign country policies in their attempts to keep that power they will do that too, (such as the recent ruling that death sentences to teenagers are unconstitutional).

It goes on and on.

Rivrdog

I'll admit that the Judiciary hasn't been the friend of the Constitution much in the last 70 or 80 years. That said, don't you think it's encouraging that for once, they had the correct protective instinct, and actually made some protective judgments for the Constitution?

This one case doesn't make up for all the attacks on the 2A, the idiotic trend of product liability laws and lawsuits, etc, etc, but it's a start. We now know that the Judiciary CAN protect the Constitution.

And what's this with the ReligioRight basically just grumbling at the rest of the judges who refused to install religion into the Constitution, but now they want to IMPEACH Judge Birch, supposedly because he was appointed as a conservative and now BETRAYS his conservative buddies? GMAFB, how shallow is THAT?

As I pointed out in my last Shiavo post, I'll debate on the Founder's intent to have Judeo-Christian morality in the MEN who ran the country (they did so intend), and I'll debate on how the practice of religion fits into our Constitutional society (hint: writing Private Bills to instill a religious tenet DOESN'T FIT), but for me, there's no debate on the Constitutionality of any religion, religious thought or pieces of religious dogma. It isn't now, never has been, never will be.

You can call it whatever you want Jason, but Right To Life issues such as whether a 2-cell zygote is a human being, or whether human life must be supported, dispite pain and suffering or value of that life, until "God" extinguishes that life do not, can not and will not belong as encoded law under our Constitution.

Some conservatives seem to think that if they don't take an entire religion, from front to back, encode and install it as Law, they haven't violated the Constitution. I say bullshit. This is exactly the mechanism that the libs use to attack the 2A. If a single IDEA, by itself, is identifiable as a religious tenet, and stands as such when examined etymologically, then it doesn't belong in our LAW. We support the Second Amendment "en bloc", as written. Why can't we support Separation of Powers and the Establishment clause the same way?

Thanks for caring enough to comment civilly, though.

Jason

"...because of the Judiciary, and it's excellent protective instincts for the Constitution."

You sure this statement shouldn't have been posted on April 1st, "Fool's Day"?

Is this the same Judiciary that says the 2nd Amendment isn't meant for the little folks, that your house can be taken by government and sold to other citizen's by way of "eminent domain." The same Judiciary that has now ruled you don't have the right to remain silent, (your papers please?) Better yet, "campaign reform" laws, better known as "silence the NRA at election time" laws, also ruled Constitutional.

Our Judiciary, specifically the SCOTUS, (which all other courts are forced to abided by), has not stood for the Constitution in over 100 years... Remember the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." With the vast array of Federal agencies, try telling me the Judiciary has stood for the Constitution when these powers were never delegated to Big Brother. Yet, SCOTUS rules them Constitutional...

The only thing the Judiciary is protecting is itself.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad