It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congress' Judicial Review For Schaivo Passed For Future Judicial Tyranny Arguement

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Well, I really don't like doing this, because I highly doubt most of the people on the rather liberal side here would post any possible conspiracy their own party may be involved in. However, I've come across this information and it would be intellectually dishonest for me to not say anything about it while I complain and theorize about the Democrat's doings.

Congress passed an emergency bill to force the federal courts to rereview Terri Schaivo's case a while back. As soon as this bill was passed, a trial was held to rereview Terri Schaivo's case. However, the lawyers did not address this, they filed under something else. As a result, the judge's hands were tied, and they could not rule in the manner Congress made clear they wanted done. Congress defined the new law along very narrow bounds so it wouldn't be abused. When Terri Schaivo's lawyers ignored those bounds and addressed a totally different issue, the court's hands were tied.

However, as soon as that happened, it was reported that the judge ignored congress and ruled on his own. I saw no commentary on this after the fact, I only found out about it through an uncle who is a trial lawyer and was following the case closely. Now, Terri Schaivo has become the poster child for judicial tyranny.

Now, I agree the judges have gotten out of hand, overturning laws because their personal ideology doesn't sync up with it. However, you don't fight sin with sin. By making the case in point out of nothing, a lie by ommission, it's going to backfire. Anyone else have any more details to fill in?

[edit on 4-26-2005 by junglejake]




posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
However, you don't fight sin with sin. By making the case in point out of nothing, a lie by ommission, it's going to backfire. Anyone else have any more details to fill in?



She's dead, Jim, been dead a while now. Thanks for catching up.

You mean, could it be possible that your political party might exploit the most paranoid, most feverish, simply most rabid core of its voting base to score cheap heat? In this case, using the most seditious rhetoric possible to chill the bones of the Gospel Gumps in the choir, and playing their Mark of The Beast fears about the evil, ecumenical Judges that are in league with Satan, and planning to usher in the one world government.

And really, who would want to be Left Behind?

Not Tom DeLay, who's the just the kind of Front Lines soldier to know when a good Ethical Violations Investigation can be infused with an old fashioned Come To Jesus Meeting. Certainly not with Judgement Day literally a chugging down the tracks, and the Promised Land a waitin around the corner. If it weren't for all those heathen, secular folk playing with fire, the Good Christians of America might be able to return America to the Dominion of which it was born.

Well, the Christian Dominion never existed, and the New Dominion isn't coming down the tracks either. At the end of the day, Christians were exploited by the slimey self righteousness of a group of Republican Lobbiests who believe in Christ at All Costs.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Well. Brimstone, it appears you don't see what could really have happened here. I'm not talking about the most paranoid, most feverish, simply most rabid core (like myself, I'm assuming?). I'm talking about Joe American, who turns on the news and, even if he wanted to let Schaivo die, he just got to hear about another judge taking the law into his own hands and ignoring the legislative branch entirely. This situation was not an example of judges taking the law away from the legislative. However, it was such a huge, international story that everyone heard about the judge who didn't do what congress wanted him to do.

The conspiracy, if there is one, lies with the top Republican planners and Terri Schaivo's lawyers in how they filed the case. How you managed to turn this into a chance to spout anti-Christian rhetoric, I'm not sure.

The conspiracy has nothing to do with Terri Schaivo. It has to do with setting up a judge to look tyrannical in media soundbites while he was, for all intents and purposes, upholding the law, not creating it.

EDIT: Just a quick reminder -- just because a thread has the words "Terri Schaivo" in it doesn't mean this is a conversation about religion and state sponsored murder


[edit on 4-26-2005 by junglejake]



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
From what I understand, the Schindler family lawyers weren't very good and didn't really bring up the best legal issues. Was that part of a conspiracy? I highly doubt it but I guess anything is possible, at least on this website!



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
From what I understand, the Schindler family lawyers weren't very good and didn't really bring up the best legal issues. Was that part of a conspiracy? I highly doubt it but I guess anything is possible, at least on this website!


The thing is, they were working directly with the ACLJ, which was donating its time to the case. The ACLJ is good at its choices of legal battles and its use of defense. That's why I found it so odd that the lawyers would have chosen to pursue the legal course they did. They had some good lawyers guiding them. So why did they deviate from the advise of people who I am sure said, "if you want this, you have to file like this."

The world may never know, but the media hasn't touched this issue. All I had heard about when it happened was the judge didn't use the powers congress had just given him. They never said he couldn't.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Well, I really don't like doing this, because I highly doubt most of the people on the rather liberal side here would post any possible conspiracy their own party may be involved in. However, I've come across this information and it would be intellectually dishonest for me to not say anything about it while I complain and theorize about the Democrat's doings.


That's great posting ethic right there.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

That's great posting ethic right there.


It's too bad more people don't follow it. I remember a conversation waaaaay back in the day with Colonel where he explained to me (he may have believed it) that the only crime and corruption in politics was done by Republicans, and the Democrats' hands were totally clean. I like to think Colonel wasn't that delusional.



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   
I hope I don't stray off the topic...but I have my own theory on this.

I think the reason why they did not pursue the avenue entitled to them was that they knew they were going to lose. It is very clear cut and obvious who gets to make decisions on behalf of an incapacitated person.

Michael Schiavo could come out say that his wife wanted to live, but he wanted to see her dead and nobody could stop him. It would, of course, make him look like the biggest piece of trash, but he could have done that.

He had the ultimate power in the case. The courts knew that. The parents knew that. The Congress and Senate and the President knew that. And they knew they would lose on a pure rights case. But, they still pressed on with the "good" fight, if you will. I think the parents pursued an option that would leave questions. Why, you ask? That way we could all theorize on what happened and what could have happened. And thus, every side can still claim to be correct.

Perhaps I am just stupid...but I would not put that past anybody involved in this whole ordeal. I think the parents knew, or at least informed, that they would lose this case. (And lose it bad.) They either just went on a gamble or did what I said earlier.

And junglejake, could please add a few more "re's" in front rereview. It may seem redundant, but I think it could only add to the true absurdity of how long this case has lasted. I mean, it had to have been rereviewed at least four times in the last two months of her life, let alone the past seven and a half years.



new topics




 
0

log in

join