You Might Be A Fake Conservative if...

Activist Judges Wanted: Apply At GOP.Com.

Published on March 21, 2005 By kingbee In Current Events

a. you stay up all night with a bunch of your hypocrite associates to pass a law that violates the balance of powers.

b. you vote for a law that is in direct opposition to the constitution by interfering with the rights of the several states (well actually a single state..but for the 2nd time in five years).

c. you go out of your way to help enact a law that permits the federal government to impose itself into an individual family's affairs and cater to the the religious beliefs of your political supporters and force their so-called moral values on a married couple.

d. you are a former governor of texas who routinely rejected appeals of citizens facing execution--despite the fact that your state has a horrendous record of railroading defendants in capital cases--and can say this without being struck dead on the spot: "In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life," President Bush said in a statement after signing the bill.

e. you've been whining for years about activist judges but then go to incredible lengths in hopes of finding one who will validate all the abuses listed above.

Comments (Page 2)

kingbee

on Mar 22, 2005

So does you lobotomy, but that is a different blog

rather insensitive response considering the larger topic of discussion doncha think doc?

kingbee

on Mar 22, 2005

I like the bit about "activist judges.

These are legislators trying to pass a law to confront an injustice they see playing out in front of them.

in fact, these are legislators and a president hoping to elicit the help of a federal judge to help them out. there is a more than a little bit of bizarre symmetry involved in the fact that this is happening during 'holy week'; in effect, the temple wants to dump this one into pilate's hands.

kingbee

on Mar 22, 2005

Imagine walking into an immigration hearing and telling the judge that "Sure, I have been living with another woman for ten years and have a family elsewhere, BUT that is really my wife and I should be allowed to stay..."

But in this one, the parents should be the ones deciding. The "husband" has clearly moved on. I don't understand why the parents don't have the right to keep her alive? Why are the liberals clamouring for her death?

the husband--before clearly moving on (which isnt the case at all or we wouldnt be discussing it now)--loses standing to act on his wife's behalf because what? he finally accepted what every doctor involved had been telling him for four years, during which he did all he could do for his wife medically and legally (including paying for procedures her parents would have passed on as being too expensive)?

in the fifteen years he's been responsible for her care, she has never experienced a single bedsore. that speaks volumes about him and the hospice in which she's been cared for (if either of you have any experience with a bedridden invalid relative, you know just how remarkable that is).

since they decided to make this their crusade, his wife's parents have made wild and irresponsible charges and youre buying into them.

baker--with all due respect--your analogy is horribly flawed. this is nothing at all similar to what you've proposed.

kingbee

on Mar 22, 2005

You might be a fake liberal if you spend your time pointing out the hypocrisy of others, instead of defending the lives of the most helpless among us.

i saved this one for last. if you truly believe that the president and congress are defending the lives of anyone, your sadly misperceiving what's goin on here.

you would be correct if they'd shown any interest in the plight of others who have been allowed to die in such a barbaric and cruel manner. they didn't.

nor are they addressing the cause of those--other than ms schiavo--who will be forced to die this way today. or tomorrow. or next week. or next year.

they've latched onto to this woman's tragedy in order to make points with an issue group to whom they're indebted and--this is where the hypocrisy comes in--for whom they're unwilling to risk their offices.

if there was an ounce of humanity shared by these pharisees, they woulda stayed the hell outta what is ultimately the most awful decision one person has to make for another. or failing that, they would have long ago did something to provide those making the decision with a means by which to render it a lot less cruel.

bakerstreet

on Mar 22, 2005

kingbee-- with all due respect, I don't seen anything in your response that refutes it. How, after ten years in another relationship, two kids, a decade of distraction, is this guy still her "guardian"? Can you imagine any other circumstance where a man can walk away from his wife for ten years and still be considered the "concerned husband"?

Hell no. The only difference here is this woman cannot speak for herself. The parents were smacked down by the courts because they supposedly didn't have the right to sue for divorce for her. So, who the hell is going to? At what point does this man "move on" and relinquish the control?

***

As for your idea of lawmaking, you are boggling my mind. Following your rationale, there'd never be any need for a Legislature. All that we need is in the COnstitution, courts to interperet it, and an executive branch to enforce it.

The reality, however, is we have a Legislative branch whose sole purpose is to respond to the needs of the American people by making law. I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that legislators making law is overstepping their bounds.

**

The states rights argument is morbidly flawed. Go back and look at the civil rights movement. This wasn't just enforcement of "The Constitution", or federal court decisions, the Legislative branch made Federal laws that gave the ideals that had been set forth teeth.

Why do we need Federal civil rights law at all then? Because you don't arrest someone and charge them with violating the Constitution. People violate LAWS. On the grand scale, the courts interpret the spirit of the Constitution, sure, but the real enforcable mandate comes from the legislative branch in the form of law.

So, in this situation, the Legislators, on both sides of the aisle, saw a gaping hole in Constitutional interpretation. They saw that the lack of dictate in this situation could lead to the deaths of innocent people. In response, they made legislation, just like they did in the civil war era, just as they did in the Great Depression, just as they did in civil rights era.

Sure, there will be backward places that want to rebel. The national guard had to be called in to enforce civil rights LAWS, not the COnstitution. This case, in my opinion, is no different.

kingbee

on Mar 22, 2005

Now, though, it is somehow "obstructionist" to protect the rights of handicapped people who are being discarded like garbage.

nobody's rights are being protected--least of all the handicapped. if you want to discuss who dumped the handicapped out into america's streets during the 70s and 80s--i'm up for it.

kingbee

on Mar 22, 2005

How, after ten years in another relationship, two kids, a decade of distraction, is this guy still her "guardian"? Can you imagine any other circumstance where a man can walk away from his wife for ten years and still be considered the "concerned husband"?

what would be his motivation for remaining involved? to maintain control? to kill her? do you consider mr yates a better husband because he hasnt remarried yet?

are you trying to say that a man cannot act in his parent's best interests because he's married and 'moved on'?

i know former spouses, now divorced, who would be able to act with integrity to ensure the wishes of their former partners would be realized.

what makes him such a monster (other than the schindlers' list of scary tales?)

kingbee

on Mar 22, 2005

The reality, however, is we have a Legislative branch whose sole purpose is to respond to the needs of the American people by making law. I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that legislators making law is overstepping their bounds.

remind me of another instance in which the congress met to enact a law that focused on the situation of a single person rather than addressing the issue affecting others in identical situations (other than addressing issues of citizenship).

bakerstreet

on Mar 22, 2005

"what would be his motivation for remaining involved?"

I have no idea. I can't fathom why someone who believes his wife to be brain dead, and who has since started a new family, would spend time and effort to rip his previous wife away from her family and starve her to death. The "humanity" argument is silly at best, if he truly believes she is already brain dead.

"are you trying to say that a man cannot act in his parent's best interests because he's married and 'moved on'? "

A man doesn't move out and marry new parents. The US, at this point, doesn't recognize polygamy. He is at the very least a common law father and spouse to this other woman, and yet steadfastly retains his "guardianship" over Terri Schiavo as if she were some peice of real estate he "manage".

"what makes him such a monster (other than the schindlers' list of scary tales?)"

The fact that his life is devoted to killing his former spouse.

kingbee

on Mar 22, 2005

wolfson--the attorney ad litem for ms schiavo--agrees with the courts that it's not unreasonable to believe that her husband is acting in accordance with her instructions and that her parents are acting in opposition to them

bakerstreet

on Mar 22, 2005

"remind me of another instance in which the congress met to enact a law that focused on the situation of a single person rather than addressing the issue affecting others in identical situations (other than addressing issues of citizenship)."

You must be kidding. Perhaps you could refresh my memory as to where in the Constitution it says Congress can't enact a law concerning one person?

The Legislative branch directs legislation at individuals all the time, whether it be condemnation or praise or actual acts effecting them. They have the right to convene all sorts of investigations and hearings, we saw one this week about Baseball.

In this case there is simply no time to agree on broad legislation. She will die in a few days with no liquids. Once she is dead, she no longer has "rights", and the opportunity to have this hashed out in Federal court will be lost until someone else decides they want to discard an unwanted handicapped person.

This leglislation puts her case in the perview of the Federal Courts, enabling Federal courts to review her situation in light of Federal civil rights laws.

bakerstreet

on Mar 22, 2005

" wolfson--the attorney ad litem for ms schiavo--agrees with the courts that it's not unreasonable to believe that her husband is acting in accordance with her instructions and that her parents are acting in opposition to them"

It isn't unreasonable to believe that there is a Santa Claus, considering all the attention the character gets once a year. Children believe it, industries are built around it. Why not. Plausibility isn't fact.

It may be plausable that the situation is as M. Schiavo is dictating it. If he can't prove it, however, it is simply a hearsay statement recalled years after the fact.

kingbee

on Mar 22, 2005

It may be plausable that the situation is as M. Schiavo is dictating it. If he can't prove it, however, it is simply a hearsay statement recalled years after the fact

two other people have backed his statement with sworn testimony that supports his claim. it's terribly presumptive for the federal government to intervene whether or not that was the case.

bakerstreet

on Mar 22, 2005

" it's terribly presumptive for the federal government to intervene whether or not that was the case."

People believed that Federal civil rights laws were terribly presumptive. The South thought that Federal impositions were terribly presumptive. Most recently, folks scoffed at the idea that states should be able to decide whether homosexuals can marry.

Welcome to the world that the great social concience hath made. Time and again we are told that states don't have the right to decide. Now, Florida may be told they don't have the right to decide this one. Make all the semantic arguments you want, but this is a sword forged by Liberalism. Don't get pissed when other people use it.

bakerstreet

on Mar 22, 2005

To me, this isn't about "fake conservatives"...

... it is about Liberals getting really, really mad that their heavy-handed toys are being used to serve Conservative causes.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!