Terri Shaivo thread

[JUGGERNAUT]

Our constitution places the ultimate power with an ordinary citizen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think that was the best thing to come out of this. I can not remember another case that so clearly defined the separation of powers in our government like this one has.

That is what makes it so fascinatingly unique. The world has now witnessed the strength & weaknesses of our system of government. Through it all the respect of the rule of law was maintained.

 

The world witnessed the strength of our system in the acts of the executive & legislative branches but also the weaknesses in our judicial branch. It is easy for us as Americans to say based on our perspectives that is not a weakness or a strength. But to people around the world they will see it differently. I know because I've talked to them about this.

 

A Japanese colleague of mine sent me this e-mail:

I can't believe judges in your country can ignore the acts of your legislaturers.

 

He didn't go into the particulars of it having happened twice at the state & federal level but his statement is probably reflective for most around the world. When it applies to life & death it makes it even more emotional.

 

I've spoken on this issue beforehand. In the modern world life-terms for judges is antiquated. It's too much power consoldated in too few individuals in a fast-paced ever changing world. The old argument was that judges needed life sentences so they were not beholden to the people. I never bought into that argument because the very notion of it questions the honor & the integrity of the judge themself. Why should the notion of judges needing to be retained at all levels have any bearing on the honor & integrity of a judge? It shouldn't. They are expected to be the most honorable persons in our society.

 

I personally would feel more comfortable appearing before a judge nearing 50 yrs of age than one nearing 70. I just feel the 50 yr old is more capable of staying in touch with the modern world than the 70 yr old. I think that's important when it comes to the bench.

[mreye]

Tex, she's LHAO at Juggs being obviously late with the SC ruling. Give her a break.

[YASNY]

Stepping back in here. The judicial branch of our government is the strength of our government. The founding fathers, in their immense wisdom, established the lifetime appointments for our judges. In order to ensure the judges were qualified, they have to pass the rigorous approval of both houses of congress after being nominated by the president. This was a well thought out system and one that has proven to be the backbone of the government. It also happens to be why judicial nomination and approval is such a contentious process. The founding fathers never cease to amaze me with their wisdom.

[Steff]

Tex, she's LHAO at Juggs being obviously late with the SC ruling. Give her a break.

 

 

 

You think that was bad.. you should see the PM I got... <_>

[mreye]

You think that was bad.. you should see the PM I got... <_>

Uh oh.

[Steff]

Uh oh. 

 

 

Eh... I'm just gonna nix my, obviously, "sad" attempts at sarcasm in the future. I'm not that good at it anyway.

[mreye]

Eh... I'm just gonna nix my, obviously, "sad" attempts at sarcasm in the future. I'm not that good at it anyway.

FWIW, I got it.

[Steff]

FWIW, I got it.

 

 

Yea.. others said they did also. No big deal.. I'm confident my stance on this is clear.

[Texsox]

You think that was bad.. you should see the PM I got... <_>

 

In response to the PM I got from her stating her comments were exactly as I was taking them.

 

My first PM stated she should look at the last post because I didn't think it looked like what she meant. I was thinking I was missing something. I was shocked when she responded that her response was it was exactly what she meant.

 

I have read some very disturbing things here, but this takes the cake. :headshake

 

I am just sick.

[Steff]

Really.. I agreed with you that I was laughing at her demise..?

 

Sorry you missed the intent. Apparently others didn't have a problem comprehending it.

 

 

Re:LMAO?, Today, 10:15 AM

 

 

Thread Head

 

 

Group: Forum Moderator

Posts: 13,803

Member No.: 438

Joined: May 13, 2003

 

 

 

QUOTE

QUOTE

QUOTE

QUOTE

You might want to take another look at your last post in the Terri thread. I am pretty certain that how it appears, isn't how you mean it.

 

 

 

I'm certain that anyone reading that thread knows exactly what I mean.

 

 

Yes and I find it very sick.

 

 

 

I find it sad that you assume such a thing.

[YASNY]

What we have here is a complete misunderstanding. It happens to be occuring between two people who I like and respect. Deep breath time you two. This is your classic case of internet miscommunication.

[mreye]

What we have here is a complete misunderstanding.  It happens to be occuring between two people who I like and respect.  Deep breath time you two.  This is your classic case of internet miscommunication.

I concur!

[EvilJester99]

"What we have here is a failure to communicate"

[mreye]

"What we have here is a failure to communicate"

I knew that was coming.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Stepping back in here.  The judicial branch of our government is the strength of our government.  The founding fathers, in their immense wisdom, established the lifetime appointments for our judges.  In order to ensure the judges were qualified, they have to pass the rigorous approval of both houses of congress after being nominated by the president.  This was a well thought out system and one that has proven to be the backbone of the government.  It also happens to be why judicial nomination and approval is such a contentious process.  The founding fathers never cease to amaze me with their wisdom.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How many persons qualified to serve as judges at the time the US Cons was ratified?

How many persons are qualified today? Apples & Oranges. Two different worlds.

Show me any evidence that indicates even an inkling that the authors believed the legal profession would grow to the size it has today?

 

On top of that did they have an inkling that judges would serve on the bench into their 70's & 80's?

 

Have you read anything on the effects of aging on the mind?

 

There is no wisdom in choosing cases to be decided by those past the age of retirement over those with a decade or two before it.

[YASNY]

How many persons qualified to serve as judges at the time the US Cons was ratified?

How many persons are qualified today?  Apples & Oranges.  Two different worlds.

Show me any evidence that indicates even an inkling that the authors believed the legal profession would grow to the size it has today?

 

On top of that did they have an inkling that judges would serve on the bench into their 70's & 80's?

 

Have you read anything on the effects of aging on the mind?

 

There is no wisdom in choosing cases to be decided by those past the age of retirement over those with a decade or two before it.

 

 

There's this quote by Thomas Jefferson ... hold on.

 

 

Get real. How the hell can I present "evidence"?

[southsider2k5]

I knew that was coming.

 

 

Aww, you deserve a prize

[southsider2k5]

FL court rejected Bush's attempt to take custody of Shaivo

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/24/schiavo/index.html

[Steff]

There's this quote by Thomas Jefferson  ... hold on.

Get real.  How the hell can I present "evidence"?

 

 

 

He said that?!?!?!

 

 

 

 

[Steff]

FL court rejected Bush's attempt to take custody of Shaivo

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/24/schiavo/index.html

 

 

 

"Twenty court rulings have sided with Michael Schiavo. "

[southsider2k5]

"Twenty court rulings have sided with Michael Schiavo. "

 

Looks like 21 now. Supreme Court just decided not to hear the case, so that one doesn't count.

[YASNY]

It sounds like this case has been decided. May she die quickly and easily and may she rest in piece.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Looks like 21 now.  Supreme Court just decided not to hear the case, so that one doesn't count.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As Dershowitz elluded, judges in ATL & FL love the death penalty. They love it so much they don't want to risk anything to compromise it. Why are you surprised?

 

When you really look at this case under Dershowitz' eyes the conservatives involved in this case could be viewed as a snake with two heads one trying to swallow the other. The one end is PRO-PRO-PRO death penalty the other is PRO-LIFE. The Pro-life end tried to swallow the death penalty end & the death penalty swallowed them in the process.

 

So often conservatives want to look to the bench & blame the liberals but there weren't any liberals here. From what I've read there wasn't a single judge who wrote an opinion in this case that wasn't pro death penalty. If I was the DNC chairman I would use that fact & the congressional vote in congress to drive a wedge between the conservatives in the GOP party. Here's a perfect opportunity to bring the right-to-live vs death penalty debate to the forefront for the 2006 election but instead they are making excuses for their votes. How pathetic it sounds when a Dem essentially says "I didn't want to do it! They bullied me!" Instead they should have said we protect the right-to-life for all Americans include the ones on death row. It's a crying shame when an innocent dies at the hands of the state. We know this happens. We hear it all the time in the news. We have a duty as human beings to spare no effort in determing life or death under all circumstances. Both Terri's & (insert name of last death row inmate cleared).

Edited March 24, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Steff]

It sounds like this case has been decided.  May she die quickly and easily and may she rest in piece.

 

 

 

Amen.

[southsider2k5]

As Dershowitz elluded, judges in ATL & FL love the death penalty.  They love it so much they don't want to risk anything to compromise it.  Why are you surprised?

 

I'm not surprised at all. This ruling is consistant with what the courts have been ruling for the better part of a decade.