Mel Gibson: Terri's Killing Is 'Murder'

[The Ressurrected One]

But we are not talkiing about slavery are we? Your point?

The courts aren't infallible and they've been wrong many times. That's my point.

[JoeChalupa]

I concur. I just don't think they were wrong on this one.
Difference of opinion I guess.
And the fact that the Florida court contained judges appointed by Jeb himself I don't think you can blame it on "liberal" judges.

[The Ressurrected One]

I concur. I just don't think they were wrong on this one.
Difference of opinion I guess.

Of course you don't. That doesn't make you right either, though.

And the fact that the Florida court contained judges appointed by Jeb himself I don't think you can blame it on "liberal" judges.

No, I blame it on the judicial God complex and their proclivity for flexing their judicial muscle while trying to one up the other branches of government.

But, I predict the Cons utional authority of Congress will be reasserted over the Judiciary in the coming term.

[JoeChalupa]

Of course you don't. That doesn't make you right either, though.

So then that makes you right?

No, I blame it on the judicial God complex and their proclivity for flexing their judicial muscle while trying to one up the other branches of government.

But, I predict the Cons utional authority of Congress will be reasserted over the Judiciary in the coming term.

Oh, so you agree with Tom DeLay?

[The Ressurrected One]

So then that makes you right?

Yep. It does.

Oh, so you agree with Tom DeLay?

Rarely...over what are we in agreement?

[JoeChalupa]

Yep. It does.

Well that is rather ignorant don't you think?

Rarely...over what are we in agreement?

Didn't you hear Delay's speech about "the judges will need to answer for their decisions" speech.
The speech that Bush himself disagreed with?

[FromWayDowntown]

This is asinine. The Florida courts applied the law created by the Florida Legislature in deciding Terri's case. That's not judicial activism -- it's the application of a clear law to the facts presented. In most circles, that's believed to be what courts should do.

The Congress stepped in and wrote a law. That law did not command the federal courts to consider the merits of Terri's case. The law only created jurisdiction for federal courts to determine if the Schindler family had grounds for an injunction, which would have allowed the reinsertion of the feeding tube. An element of proof to obtain any injunction is proof that the movant (the party seeking the injunction) can prove its case. The Schindler's made an offer of their proof concerning the merits of their claim, and the federal court determined that there was no realistic chance that they could successfully prove any violation of Terri's rights under either the U.S. Cons ution or the laws of the United States. The federal courts did precisely as the law instructed. Had they stepped in, over the absence of proof that the Schindlers had a claim under the existing law, they would have been the very "judicial activists" that so many conservatives decry. Only this time, the activism would have benefitted a cause that had the right's support (generally speaking) and would have been "okay" because of that.

Hypocrisy, thy name is politics.