I saw that editorial. This alleged extremist political line was the proposed review of the Schiavo case to see if her civil rights had been violated. That's the way I read it anyway.
Now, let me distinguish carefully between people killing judges and the family of judges because they don't agree with the judges' decisions, and some accountability.... I do think that where the intent of Congress is clearly y then judges should not go off into x, z or a, b and c unless there is some overriding constitutional reason. Whether this exited in the Schiavo case is open (in my mind) to question. But I have not given a lot of thought to the logistics of jurisprudence; all I know is that I think it's a) dangerous to appear to condone violence against judges and b) specious to equate all dissatisfaction with the judicial system with such violence.... Dana On Apr 6, 2005 3:14 PM, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, the law for the most part is public opinion, the only fundamental > truths, i.e. rights, are that all men are created equally, and they have the > unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. > > And that we have created a government that is to ensure these rights. > Everything else is public opinion. > > But my question here is; what was the extremist political line that the > house majority leader wanted the judges to follow? > > The idea that we need to shield judges from anything is absurd, they are > servants to the people, and around here the local ones are elected. If we > shield the judges from the people and politics how are we supposed to know > who we think will make the right choice? > > We need to ensure that the judges rule by the law. If I think one is not, > then it is my responsibility to my district, state, and country to make my > complaint known to the judge and the rest of the people. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 3:39 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: GOP: 2 Branches of Gov't Enough. > > > > "It was appalling when the House majority leader threatened political > > retribution against judges who did not toe his extremist political > > line. But when a second important Republican stands up and excuses > > murderous violence against judges as an understandable reaction to > > their decisions, then it is time to get really scared." > > > > Editorial From The New York Times: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/06/opinion/06wed1.html > > > > To me it sounds like we've got a formally federalist Republican party > > that is now nationalist. As such they've decided that the 3 branches > > of government should really be 2 - that is, they are saying the > > judiciary should have no authority and no power. > > > > That's scary to me because I've always looked at the law, and > > therefore the judiciary, as protecting the rights of the minority. > > The Republicans seem to be saying that law should be a matter public > > opinion rather than fundamental rights. > > > > Fairly scary stuff. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:152977 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
