Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Terry Schiavo

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 8910
Author
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 March 2005 at 8:37pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by Knight of Fire Knight of Fire wrote:

ok but at the same time, the judges in florida have no right to even tell Govener Jeb Bush to buzz off, they can't do so to also congress and the president. It is written in the LAW


You are 100% wrong.


It is Jeb and Congress who have no right to try to override the courts.


The courts are enforcing Florida law, the way it was passed by the Florida legislature. The legislature cannot now change its mind and say "that's not what we meant" - they can change the law if they want, but until they change it, the law is the law, and it is the court's job to enforce it. Jeb Bush has absolutely no business sticking his nose in this AT ALL.


Congress has even less right to get involved - this is a matter of state law, and has nothing to do with the federal government. Congress' involvement in this process was an abomination.



Wrong. The courts cannot enforce anything. They have neither the power of sword(enforcement) nor the power of the purse(levy taxes) Their position is mere judgment. It was FDR that said i think. "The supreme court has made their decision, now lets see them enforce it."
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 March 2005 at 9:56pm

Ah, yes.  Technically you are correct.  It is the Sheriff/police (executive branch) that enforces the law.  But it is the court (judicial branch) that decides what is to be enforced.

The legislature creates the law, the judiciary explains how to apply it, and the executive pulls the trigger.

I was using "enforce" in a more colloquial sense, but you are certainly correct.

In this context, however, I suspect that this is a non-distinction.

:)

Back to Top
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 March 2005 at 10:27pm
True, there really is no distiction between enforcing and judging in todays courts. Im not sure if that is for the best, or worst thogh.
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 March 2005 at 10:56pm
The court's ability to review and overturn legislations is a complete neccessity. The judicial branch, although techniqually not able to create laws, has been given the power of judicial discretion, which is incredibly important. Without judicial discretion, we wouldn't have things like the exclusionary rule, miranda warnings, and right to an attorney. I find that the judicial branch might be the only branch with our best interests in mind.
Back to Top
Knight of Fire View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 593
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Knight of Fire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 March 2005 at 1:51pm
Also aparently the courts when they gave the husband the right to pull the tube out forgot to mention something.

The court order alowed the removel of the tube, not the withholding of food or water. And the family of Terri actully tried feeding her normally with out the tube and it worked.


The husband and his lawyers excuse why they won't try feeding her normally. "she might choke and die"

her it is in Myth and fact form:

MYTH: Removal of food was both legal and court-ordered.
FACT: The courts had only allowed removal of Terri's feeding tube, not regular food and water. Terri's husband illegally ordered this. The law only allows the removal of "life-prolonging procedures," not regular food and water:

Florida Statute 765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying



Translation of last line: by natural process, they mean by things like Death of old age and the like......not starving someone to death

Edited by Knight of Fire
Team Wardog -team captain
Back to Top
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 March 2005 at 5:32pm
It doesnt really matter, she only has a couple hours to live. Her will is done.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 8910
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.