keaimato

Canadian, U.S., and international politics; and life in general. Heck, whatever strikes my fancy...

Thursday, March 24, 2005

Outstanding

Liberals' newfound respect for "federalism" is completely disingenuous. People who support a national policy on abortion are prohibited from ever using the word "federalism." I note that whenever liberals talk about "federalism" or "states' rights," they are never talking about a state referendum or a law passed by the duly elected members of a state legislature — or anything voted on by the actual citizens of a state. What liberals mean by "federalism" is: a state court ruling. Just as "choice" refers to only one choice, "the rule of law" refers only to "the law as determined by a court." -- Ann Coulter

posted by jdp @ 11:11 AM  

9 Comments:

  • At 11:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Law as determined by a court"? How about law as determined by every freaking court that has heard this cas ein the last 7 years? Let's get a little perspective. Coulter, the rabid lapdog of the right laments the lack of due process... does she really believe that Florida's court system is so broken that the rulings, every one for the husband, ought to be overturned? Right-winghers are quick to lament an activist judiciary, but nary a peep when a legislator oversteps...

     

  • At 12:38 PM, Blogger jdp said…

    Courts don't determine laws - they interpret them. Period.

    When do legislators overstep? No one is claiming the latest law is unconstitutional - the judges simply ignored it.

    And what's with you on a rant against "right-wingers" lately? What have we ever done to you? :)

     

  • At 1:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The right's argument in this case pisses me off the same way the Quebec separatists' argument does. Every decision and public opinion is against them and they are screaming like a petulant 2-yr-old, "No! No, my way! My way!!!"

    No one is claiming the latest law is unconstitutional - the judges simply ignored it.
    Actually, the first federal judge that reviewed the case question the constitutionality of the law, but set it aside to review the case...

     

  • At 1:47 PM, Blogger jdp said…

    No one is being petulant here - except maybe you. We are simply arguing that a man who has an interest in the death of his wife should not be allowed to be the sole decision maker with respect to her life. And we are arguing that the standard should be higher when it comes to killing disabled people.

    I'm not sure which judge you are talking about. There has been one primary judge throughout this case and he has routinely ruled against the family. There have been many more appeals on all kinds of grounds, most unsuccessful.

    But in the most recent case, just judges didn't rule on the constitutionality of the law. They just ignored it.

     

  • At 2:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The judge to which I'm referring is the first federal judge (U.S. District Judge James Whittemore).

    Ten courts and 19 judges - what more do you want?

    What does he have to gain from her death? There's no money left, and he's been offered up to $10 million to walk away, so it can't be about that. If all he wanted was to marry his girlfriend, he would have divorced his wife.

    Petulance? I don't think so - I'm arguing for the rule of law. If you don't like the law, get it changed, but don't make one that only applies in one case... what's the use of that, except to score points with your political base?

     

  • At 2:46 PM, Blogger jdp said…

    I think the point was to save a life, and to ensure the case was properly reviewed. Rightly or wrongly, they were interested in saving a life.

     

  • At 6:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    So the case has been reviewed by every court that could possibly have done so, and the verdict remains the same. The courts have determined that Mrs. Schiavo's constitutional/religious/whatever rights have not been abrogated. Don't you think the parent's time could have been spent saying goodbye?

     

  • At 12:44 AM, Blogger jdp said…

    Do you realize, Ian, that all of your arguments about this case apply to the abortion law in the US? Even proponents of abortion realize that it is terrible law.

    Judges make mistakes, and sometimes other judges reaffirm them. They are fallible.

     

  • At 11:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Yes, but people trying to change abortion laws don't cry to Congress to make a law regarding just one person - they press for judicial change across the board, which is what should have happened in this case (and did in Florida, although they didn't get the votes to pass the bill requiring people be kept alive in the absence of written instructions). I'm not saying the present situation is ideal, but the way to deal with it is broad changes, not one-time-only laws that have no impact outside the immediate case.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home