PDA

View Full Version : Starved for justice


Danny
03-24-2005, 08:13 AM
Starved for justice
Ann Coulter
March 24, 2005

Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: 1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard), 2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms), and 3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).

So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it's against Americans.

More (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20050324.shtml)

Cheesecake
03-24-2005, 10:23 AM
Ann hit the nail on the head again:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Given the country's fetishism about court rulings, this may be a rash assumption, but I presume if Greer had ordered that Terri Schiavo be shot at her husband's request – a more humane death, by the way – the whole country would not sit idly by, claiming to be bound by the court's ruling because of the &quot;rule of law&quot; and &quot;federalism.&quot; President Bush would order the FBI to protect her and Gov. Bush would send in the state police. [/QUOTE]

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/banghead.gif the only alternative left?

Tyler2
03-24-2005, 10:57 AM
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">...a state court that has ordered a disabled woman to be starved to death at the request of her adulterous husband.[/QUOTE]

Either a marriage means something.
Or, it does NOT! *You cannot have it both ways!

It seems to me that when a person commits adultery, they have not only broken the vow of marriage; they have broken the contract of marriage.

And that having failed to fulfill their obligation (responsibility), they have forfeited any rights (authority) that were attached thereto. *

The existence of children whose conception occured (outside the marriage) during the marriage is prima facie evidence of abandonment of the marriage contract. *And should automatically disqualify Michael Shiavo from having ANY say over Terri's welfare. *Tell me where my logic is faulty.

papajaxxx
03-24-2005, 11:10 AM
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Greer has cut off the legal rights of Terri's real family and made her husband (now with a different family) her sole guardian, citing as precedent the landmark &quot;Fox v. Henhouse&quot; ruling of 1893.[/QUOTE]

Great line!

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: &quot;Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.&quot; The court's ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived.

[/QUOTE]

Good question? Who enforced the removing of the feeding tube? Who personally removed it? Who took it upon themself to follow the court order?
Was a specific person named in the court order?

I would not have removed it. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/no.gif

A bunch of people should have said, &quot;It's not my job, man!&quot;

Froufrou
03-24-2005, 11:11 AM
Ty2: I agree, particularly since FL does NOT recognize common law unions. If they did, grounds would be bigamy. Either way, I see no reason why he should be permitted to act out what he SAYS are her wishes since he has not been her 'husband' for - how many years, 10? - as long as it's been since he got the $$$.

rangerrebew
03-26-2005, 03:12 PM
In most states, and for sure here in Michigan, you would go to prison for starving your dog to death. I guess this means that the legal system sees more value in pet life than in human.