Schiavo - Judges and The People

[Ron Lambert]

If I may comment, Planey, on what you said, both Congress and the President are elected, and are subject to either re-call or impeachment, or being voted out of office in the next election. Federal judges are not elected, they are appointed, so there is very little way for them to be held answerable to the people. The will of the people can be very well known when there is an election. When 80% of the population say in ballot initiatives that they are opposed to same-sex marriage, and judges go ahead and wrest and warp the law to allow it anyway, it is pretty safe to say that the judges are not following the will of the people.

[Dr. Shane]

The will of the people is expressed in one of two ways. First is through their elected representatives. Second is through measures placed directly on the ballot.

Some may ask, "Well, what if the representatives make laws the people don't like? Is that still the will of the people?" If representatives make laws the people don't like, the people can vote them out and vote in others that will change the laws. The will of the people prevail.

Such is not the case with activist judges that have life-time appointments and no concern about the will of the people. There is the danger.

Abortion is a good example. Abortion is not legal in the US due to the will of the people. In fact, pro-choice groups fight tooth and nail to prevent the people from having a say on the abortion issue. If abortion was left to the people, it would be illegal in many states and restricted in others. It is legal because a handful of judges decided it should be. The people have nothing to say about it. That is very scary for some of us.

[Planey]

Ron, yes that's the way I understood it as well.

My reason for asking is that Shane appeared to me to be indicating that it was "the will of the people" that Terri Schiavo remain with the feeding tube attached. From observing sources such as media reports and internet blogs, it seemed that a majority of people favored removal of the tube while a small but extremely vocal minority supported its retention.

I just couldn't see how this was "the will of the people."

Graeme

[Planey]

Shane, Roe vs Wade was quite a while ago. Surely if 80% of the electorate are against this decision there has been time to lobby Congress and/or the Senate to have legislation passed to alter this decision. The judges don't pass the laws do they? My understanding was that they interpret the laws.

Graeme

[Dr. Shane]

It doesn't take 80% to make the will of the people. Roe v. Wade was some 30 years ago but it takes 2/3 of Congress and 2/3 of all states to ammend our Constitution. That is more than just the will of the people. That is a concesus. There is not now nor has there ever been a concesus on abortion.

The will of the people was that Terri Schiavo have her feeding tube reinserted. The will of the people was expressed by the elected representatives in Congress. I am not stating that I agree with that. I am simply making the observation. The will of the people told the courts not to use precident and to wipe the slate clean as if Schiavo had never had a hearing. The courts outright rejected the will of the people. (Polls do not determine the will of the people)

Judges are not to make laws but Roe v. Wade is a classic example of them doing exactly that. No where does the Constitution of the United States protect the right of a woman to abort her unborn child. Read it from front to back.

Let's look at the 9th Ammendment: "The enumeration in this Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Now why was that put in there? By reading articles and letters written by the founders we find the reason was because they feared some day the government would deny a right because it was not explicittly granted in the Constitution. To list a few examples: right to an education, right to get married, right to choose one's carear, right to have children, right to own land, etc. The nineth ammendment basically says that just because a right is not mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean the people do not have it.

The Supreme Court used the nineth ammendment to grant the right to a woman to abort her unborn child. The Supreme Court ruled that the word "others" includes abortion. Now do you think that is making law or interpretting law? It is hard for any of us to believe abortion is what the founders had in mind when they included that ammendment. The Court was obvious adding something to the Constitution that isn't there. Using that reasoning they can rule that to be prostitutes or use illegal drugs is a right.

[K]

Quote:

---

[:"blue"] it takes 2/3 of Congress and 2/3 of all states to ammend our Constitution [/]

---

I am thankful that it does take 2/3 of Congress and 2/3 of all the states to amend the Constitution. Having 2/3 majority means that we don't get laws passed on a whim or by what is the popular thing right now.

Remember the amendment for women's rights in the 70's what happened to that law????

K

[Ron Lambert]

Actually, the American system works surprisingly well. The will of the people always prevails, but not always immediately. There are many built in time-lags that allow insightful leaders to do the right things when the majority of the people do not agree, and then when enough time goes by, the majority of the people come to see the wisdom of the insightful leader's initiative, and approve of it.

This is actually one of the chief areas where the American systemn is superior to the British system, because in the British system, with its votes of "no confidence" which require new elections immediately, the ignorance of the majority does not always have enough time to be corrected, and insightful leaders are often removed from office for taking initiatives that were actually right and wise. For instance, we witness the historic stupidity of voting out Winston Churchill in favor of Neville Chamberlain, who then by his mis-guided policies of appeasement allowed Hitler and the German Nazis to gain effective control over half of Europe before the British realized they had to take a stand. Then, fortunately, they turned back to Churchill. But Chamberlain would never have made it into office under the American system with its longer delays in implementing the will of the people. Churchill would have taken a stand against Hitler before he had time to build up his military forces and strategic positions to the point where they very nearly defeated England (and would have, if not for the belated intervention of the United States on the side of England).

This is an often overlooked strength of the American system, because the people are never right all the time; quite often they are wrong. But given time and wise leadership, those positions and beliefs that were once held only by a minority can become the positions and beliefs of the majority.

For example, when the report of the official autopsy of Terri Schiavo is released, if it includes the conclusion that portions of Terri's brain were active that indicate awareness of the environment, there will be a large scale change in the positions of the majority, and they will realize that the position of the President and the Republicans in general was right. Then if the autopsy also shows that Terri was physically abused, confirming the testimony of the people Judge Greer refused to hear, a lot more people will come to see clearly what only a minority have seen clearly before this. It is only too bad that Terri had to die before the majority could wise up, in this case.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

For instance, we witness the historic stupidity of voting out Winston Churchill in favor of Neville Chamberlain, who then by his mis-guided policies of appeasement allowed Hitler and the German Nazis to gain effective control over half of Europe before the British realized they had to take a stand.

---

Chamberlain is one of the most maligned politicians in recent western history.

He knew very well that England needed time to arm to face Hitler. He went to Munich, came home, made the famous "peace in our time" remark, AND BEGAN ONE OF THE MOST INTENSE AND RAPID BUILDUP OF A MODERN ARMED FORCE IN OUR TIME. The Hurricanes, Spitfires, radar system, and ships that held the Germans at the English channel were not available by accident, and they were only just ready at all.

His public remark, and private action, bought Britain just enough time to get its act together.

/Bevin

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

For example, when the report of the official autopsy of Terri Schiavo is released, if it includes the conclusion that portions of Terri's brain were active that indicate awareness of the environment, there will be a large scale change in the positions of the majority, and they will realize that the position of the President and the Republicans in general was right. Then if the autopsy also shows that Terri was physically abused, confirming the testimony of the people Judge Greer refused to hear, a lot more people will come to see clearly what only a minority have seen clearly before this. It is only too bad that Terri had to die before the majority could wise up, in this case.

---

I noticed a lot of blustering in favor of the Catholic and "prolife at any cost" movement....What's gonna happen if what Micheal say is true? If the autopsy shows the brain was over half gone and replaced by spinal fluid, if what was left was not able to be congnant? What are YOU gonna do?

Ya gotta allow for that possiblity also, Ron.....

[Bravus]

That was my question too, Ron. I take your points about what the results would be if the autopsy shows what you've posited, but what would they be if they show what Neil has described? No abuse, and a badly atrophied brain? Will that change your perspective, or will you dismiss it in some way? Evidence only counts as evidence if you follow it wherever it leads...

[Ron Lambert]

Yes, we will have to let the chips fall where they may.

[Ron Lambert]

Virtually all historians recognize that Chamberlain's appeasement policy was foolish and ill-advised. He well deserves to be maligned. He has become the poster boy for naive wishful thinking and failing to take a decisive stand when such is needed.

Documents of the Third Reich seized after the war show clearly that Hitler had given orders to his army to retreat from its pre-war aggressive expansion into neighboring countries at the least sign that the British or French were going to react strongly and take any kind of action.

Since Germany had more resources and more of a determined will to undergo a military buildup (this is one of the chief advantages of any dictatorship), the more time that went by, the more Hitler could build up his forces and overtake and surpass the British forces. Any delay by Chamberlain was a bad idea in itself. It would have been best to take a strong stand and call Hitler to account as soon as possible, before Germany had time to recover fully from the consequences of its loss in World War I, and became the most powerful military force on the planet. That is what happened because of Chamberlain's "delaying tactics."

[bevin]

As usual, your ignorance is not surprising, but your certainty appalls me.

I refer you to

http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/snapshots/snapshot30/snapshot30.htm

http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/snapshots/snapshot31/snapshot31.htm

I especially point you to General Ismay's analysis

"It follows, therefore, that from the military point of view, time is in our favour, and that, if war with Germany has to come, [:"red"]it would be better to fight her in say 6-12 months' time, then to accept the present challenge[/]"

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Actually, the American system works surprisingly well. The will of the people always prevails, but not always immediately.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Actually abortion is a prime example of the failure of the "great experiment". When the Supreme Court decided to legalize abortion only one state of the 50 had made it legal. If Roe v. Wade was overturned today, abortion would be made illegal in 20 states and restricted in an additional 16 - leaving only 14 states allowing abortion without restrictions. Now if you call a system that overrides the will of the people to allow over 1 million babies to be killed each year a good system, we clearly do not agree and what the word "good" means.

Our Constitution has a Bill of Rights that restricts the government, and therefore the people, in regard to the laws they can pass. I favor judicial review in order to protect the minority's rights from the majority. However judicial review should be limited to a literal intrepretation of the Constitution as to what the original intenet of the document and various ammendments was.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

As usual, your ignorance is not surprising.

---

I have been thinking about why Ron did not know about Chamberlain.

The UK has a 50 year secrecy law. A great deal of previously secret information was released from 1985 = 1935+50 to 1999 = 1949+50. This information was not just about Enigma/Ultra. It also provided a lot more insight into other decisions made during those critical pre- and phony- war months/years.

It was this information, which had not made it into the history books written before then, the revealed so much more about what Chamberlain et al were up to. The Chamberlain we learnt about at school in the 1960's/1970's was a myth, and the poor man had to live with it.

/Bevin

[Ron Lambert]

Then why did the British vote out Chamberlain and vote back in Churchill, and stay with him all throughout World War II? Just quoting some general does not prove anything. You want to quote General George S. Patton as authority on reincarnation?

The problem with your efforts (or the efforts of liberals in general) to re-write history so the lessons of how wrong their philosophy has proven to be are obscured, is that liberals in Europe (and America) are still showing the same temporizing and lack of moral courage as was shown by those liberal idiots who tried to make excuses for Hitler, and counseled indulging him hoping he would be satisfied and not push his aggression any further.

This is one of the most important lessons of history, and it plain disgusts me that anyone would try to obscure it.