BetterDonkey.org

Skip to content




Tired of them libruls in the Supreme Court?

Submitted by frank swanson on April 12, 2005 - 9:25am.

You're not alone.

The Schaivo case has sparked a hot debate in this country: the merit and legitimacy of the federal judiciary. Or more attractively "judicial tyranny" as fringe conservatives, sadly overrepresented in the media, prefer to use. Unfortunately, saintly Tom DeLay and other high-ranking nuts in the Legislature fall into these ranks. Such emotive language being popular amongst the herd, it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming months.

Buckle your Amendments, things look to get bumpy.

... not the lawmakers who wrote the laws, or previous judges who set precedent for a case like this one.

Alternet has another article on this topic:
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/21736/

Some key sections:
"For starters, a 1990 Supreme Court decision established that a person in a 'consistent vegetative state' has a right to be removed from a feeding tube. That decision dealt with the case of Nancy Cruzan and was supported by liberal and conservative judges."

"In a 1997 case, Mr. Originalist himself, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, wrote that the Constitution protected 'the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment.'"

So this case is not precedent-setting; it is following previous precedents, set by various courts, liberals and conservatives alike.

It is the job of the judiciary to interpret the law and the constitution. If we don't like their interpretation of the law, we should change the law. And if we don't like their interpretation of the constitution, we should amend it. And if not enough people want to amend it, then the minority who does has to learn to live with it. That's democracy, folks!

Submitted by annemariem on April 14, 2005 - 10:47am.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.