Shoot all the Judges

[CFZB]

what have you been saying?

hi.

 

[Steve The Bluesman]

The judges job is indeed to determine what is or what isnt legal. If Veggies parents want to keep her alive they need to either challenge who has say, or prove that it is illegal to remove the tube.
JA, please find the law that says the parents have say over spouse, or that it is illegal to remove the tube.
Thanks

This is the long and the short of it. The courts simply decide the legal question of who gets to speak for the potato. The appeals courts do even less, simply reviewing what the lower court decided and determining only if the law was misinterpreted, which it wasn't...

The judges are not the ones who are grandstanding in front of the tv cameras...that would be your elected politicians.

The whole thing is a national disgrace. FWIW, I wouldn't want to live like that, whether it is technically "life support" or not. She has been looking at the baloon on the celing for 15 years. Imagine if there is cognitive thought going on behind those eyes...she would be begging to be killed.


Bluesman

 

[Roid Pimp]

You go first bro..

I've got your back.. really

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

The problem with most judges is they have too much job security and therefore are untouchable and can make any decision they feel like without consequence. We need to make it easier to remove judges from the bench for poor job performance.

I have a friend who is a wealthy lawyer who routinely gets judges to decide things inhis favor by threatening to "run someone against him".

Judges are elected. But no one challenges them. Federal judges are lifetime appointees.

The answer is

(1) term limits
(2) No lifetime appointees, even to the Supreme Court. SC judges get 1, 20 year term.
(3) Cameras in all courtrooms. Federal judges have been resisting this for decades.

Too easy.

 

[geoboy]

Tuff cases make bad law. This was bullshit legislation that's probably unconstitutional anyway (cant make laws targeted to a specific individual, and I think that's what this may have gotten boiled down to (if not in so many words) in order to get the votes to pass, because even republicans choked at the overreaching federalism issue).

so basically the judge looked at bullshit, and said "bullshit". the end result was correct, even if the path there was messy.

If they disagree with the decision they can appeal it. I dont know anything about the judge (party, ideology), but I do know that the legislation was pure pander-politics looking to keep the religiorabble happy (check my thread on the talking point that Sen Santorums office put out on the issue.- playing raw disgusting politics with a familys life)

The Congress and Executive Branch of this country passed legislation ordering a federal judge to review this womans case and his response was essentially "Go fuck yourself"

No one elsected this asshole. One judge in some federal court appointed because he helped raise a bunch of money for some politician in his district does not in any reasonable representative system get to tell the entire country to go diddle themselves.

If it were Carter or Clinton in power my angst would be the same. We now have a court system that dismisses even the most clear legislation and just interprets it to mean whatever the hell they wish.

If that doesnt concern you then you have no appreciation of how our government works, or the consequnces of legislating by fiat.

Our system of government is premised on 3 equal branches reviewing and checking one another. We no longer have that in this country. The entire nation could pass a Constitutional Amendment tomorrow and a relative handful of people can simply choose to pretend it doesnt exist.

The same people who complain about counting every vote have no concern when their elected reps are emasculated by any guy who wears a robe.

One guy, judge or not, was never intended to eb the final say on what is or isnt legal. As a practical matter we generally do allow the courts to determine legality, but they were never granted final say

 

[UA_Iron]

I have a friend who is a wealthy lawyer who routinely gets judges to decide things inhis favor by threatening to "run someone against him".

Judges are elected. But no one challenges them. Federal judges are lifetime appointees.

The answer is

(1) term limits
(2) No lifetime appointees, even to the Supreme Court. SC judges get 1, 20 year term.
(3) Cameras in all courtrooms. Federal judges have been resisting this for decades.

Too easy.

I agree with these solutions.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I think this may be the perfect time to test the theory of natural selection?

j/k

I hear midgets are often selected out of the gene pool. Might want to hold off on that unless you're standing on a phone book. lol.

 

[Lestat]

hi.

sup man

 

[UA_Iron]

I hear midgets are often selected out of the gene pool. Might want to hold off on that unless you're standing on a phone book. lol.

matt if I were on clomid right now I'd be crying, seriously.

You probably shouldnt reproduce either.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

The rule of law is paramount in these messy situations. Consider the complexity of this: her parents are saying one thing, her husband another, etc.

We don't have a King Solomon to exert his wisdom here, and monarchy sucks. So we have a system of laws that we default to.

As the law is written in Florida, the spouse has the right to make a "remove the tube" determination. Is Michael Schiavo is shitbag? Yup. Trailer Junk? yep. No question. But justice is blind.

While it may have seemed bizarre for the judge to reject Congressional (legislative) overtures, one would have to agree that adherence to laws as they are written is paramount.

And as they are written, state laws prevail here, as much as we disagree and think the wrong decision is being made. An attempt for Congress to intervene would be a nasty violation of the 10th amendment, no?