Bush's response

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
"Today millions of Americans are saddened by the death of Terri Schiavo. ... I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected.

"Especially those who live at the mercy of others. The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life."


[/ QUOTE ]

Given Bush's beliefs (as stated above) and his position as, arguably, the strongest figure in the US, did he do enough?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Considering that he had precisely zero jurisdiction, I'd say he did too much.

Show me something in the Constitution that shows that the Executive brach of the Federal Gov't has any authority at all in this case.

[MtSmalls]

[ QUOTE ]
to continue to work to build a culture of life where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, right. This from the man who executed 152 people in Texas in less than four years. Frequently reviewing the cases for less than 15 minutes before denying clemency. Executing the mentally disabled. Signing the Medical Exigency law in Texas that allows for life support to be pulled, if the medical expenses can't be paid. Or in the case of MINORS, AGAINST THE PARENTS WISHES.

He can take his "culture of life" and choke to death on it.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Considering that he had precisely zero jurisdiction, I'd say he did too much.

Show me something in the Constitution that shows that the Executive brach of the Federal Gov't has any authority at all in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really like the way you think.

[jaxmike]

REALLY don't want to get into this discussion, but here is where he Constitutionally has/had the authority to do something...

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

and that goes well with...

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Granted, the spirit of the amendment was to protect those charged with a crime, however, if they are covered, surely those who are innocent are covered. Cruel and unusual punishment also would apply here I think.

Basically, the Congress and the President had every right to do what they did. In fact, the courts cannot ENFORCE LAW, only the Executive can do that, thus, Bush was doing exactly what he SHOULD have done in this situation.

This reminds me of a great quote from Andrew Jackson, I don't have it verbatim, so I will paraphrase.

"(Supreme Court Chief Justice) Marshall has made his ruling, now let's see him enforce it..." or something to that effect. See, even 150 years ago people were fed up with the SCotUS.

[kurto]

"Given Bush's beliefs (as stated above) and his position as, arguably, the strongest figure in the US, did he do enough?" Personally, I don't believe anything Bush says.

I believe Bush had the record for executions. I still remember the interview where he snickered about a woman on death row pleading for her life... he mocked her.

Bush's war on Iraq led to how many innocents being killed? The man couldn't wait to go to war.

This is the first administration to advocate torture... to lock up suspects without trials...

"In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life." This completely contradicts his practice with the death penalty.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I don't believe anything Bush says.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't say!/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I believe Bush had the record for executions. I still remember the interview where he snickered about a woman on death row pleading for her life... he mocked her.

[/ QUOTE ]
And unless Texas law is radically different from other Capital Punishment states, every one of those executed were allowed an attorney to argue their case (provided for free if they couldn't afford it)and years and years of appeals.
It's not like Bush was out there picking random criminals from jail and shooting them.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush's war on Iraq led to how many innocents being killed? The man couldn't wait to go to war.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bush's war on Iraq led to how many innocents being saved? Probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the first administration to advocate torture

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll assume that you're talking about rendition which was NOT introduced under Bush's watch but under CLINTON'S watch.

[ QUOTE ]
to lock up suspects without trials...

[/ QUOTE ]
Many of those locked up are beyond suspected of doing something wrong...

[ QUOTE ]
This completely contradicts his practice with the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong again. Those on death row have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty. And guilty of a heinous crime.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

My way of thinking is simple. The President of the United States is not a sovereign. He is an employee of the federal government with strictly delineated authority.

[HDPM]

Sorry Jaxmike, given your view of the 14th amendment how did she have any rights at all as against what Florida decided?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Bush's war on Iraq led to how many innocents being killed?

This is absolutewly irrelevant to my point. The Constitution clearly defines one of the roles of the President to be comnmander-in-chief of the military, and the War Powers Act (regardless of my dislike for it) empowers the CIC to wage war without a declaraion of war from the Congress.

What the Constitution does not allow any President to do is overrule State courts.

[kurto]

"You don't say!" Why would anyone, I have to wonder. (BTW... since I can imagine the typical-- 'you don't like Bush you must be a liberal so I'll write you off' response... My Mother and Father have been life long Republicans. Both voted against Bush. My wife's Grandfather once didn't talk to a relative of his because that relative admitted he was voting Democrat. He's FAMOUSLY Republican. He hates Bush.... Your "you don't say" sounds loaded, but I can't imagine what it implies?

"And unless Texas law is radically different from other Capital Punishment states, every one of those executed were allowed an attorney to argue their case (provided for free if they couldn't afford it)and years and years of appeals." I believe there's been plenty written about the travesties of justice... Lawyer's spending 15 minutes prepping for their cases... sleeping in court was my favorite.

Regardless of the state's laws... As Governor, he could grant clemency. He didn't. It contradicts his statement. You find nothing contradictory about the man who governed over the record number of executions... the man who mocked a woman pleading for clemency... making the statements he did. Seems odd to me.

"Bush's war on Iraq led to how many innocents being saved? Probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions." Complete hyperbole. Who was saved from whom? Its been adequately shown that Saddam was a threat to no one. There was no reason to invade the country.

"I'll assume that you're talking about rendition which was NOT introduced under Bush's watch but under CLINTON'S watch" I'm talking about this administration trying to excuse themselves from torture because the Geneva Convention was outdated. Why are you bringing up Clinton? What's he have to do with Bush's hypocrisy/dishonesty?

"Many of those locked up are beyond suspected of doing something wrong..." I'm not sure that makes sense. 100s have already been let go after 1 or 2 of incarceration because... they didn't do anything. BTW... it used to be 'Republican' to argue for the Constitution and following the law. Its only the new breed on neoconservative who are into picking and choosing when they need to follow the laws, screw with the Constituion, etc.

"Wrong again. Those on death row have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty. And guilty of a heinous crime." No they haven't. Are you living in a cave? Apparently you've missed the numerous findings where people (because of new DNA evidence or whatever) were pulled off death row because they were proven innocent. Mind you, there have also been cases where evidence was found proving the suspects innocence when the trial is closed and their appeals have run out. ie... There is plenty of doubt as to their guilt, but the court doesn't care.

You're confusing a legal ruling with truth. They are not one and the same.

In Bush's case, he's notorious because of the terrible rulings that have happened in his state.

[kurto]

"This is absolutewly irrelevant to my point." I wasn't responding to your point. I was saying nothing more then Bush's actions contradict his statement.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, right. This from the man who executed 152 people in Texas in less than four years.

[/ QUOTE ]

They were murderers. Bush was right to kill them. It was one of the few good things that he did in Texas.

I have no sympathy for scumbag murderers.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe there's been plenty written about the travesties of justice... Lawyer's spending 15 minutes prepping for their cases... sleeping in court was my favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly why we have appellate courts...

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of the state's laws... As Governor, he could grant clemency. He didn't. It contradicts his statement.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could and should are two different things. He should follow the recommendations of the jury and judge during the sentencing phase of trial, and not just grant clemency to every person on death row simply because he (hypothetically) didn't like the DP.

[ QUOTE ]
Who was saved from whom? Its been adequately shown that Saddam was a threat to no one. There was no reason to invade the country.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know...perhaps the innocent Iraqis being tortured to death? Perhaps the women who were raped in front of their families? Perhaps the Kurds who've been the victims of ethnic cleansing?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about this administration trying to excuse themselves from torture because the Geneva Convention was outdated.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tell me exactly where Bush or any other high official in the Bush admin approved torture because "the Geneva Convention was outdated". (I already know you're going to point to Gonzalez, but I want an exact quote of those exact words)

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you bringing up Clinton? What's he have to do with Bush's hypocrisy/dishonesty?

[/ QUOTE ]
I was pre-empting the issue of rendition, which some have falsely attributed to the Bush admin.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that makes sense. 100s have already been let go after 1 or 2 of incarceration because... they didn't do anything. BTW... it used to be 'Republican' to argue for the Constitution and following the law. Its only the new breed on neoconservative who are into picking and choosing when they need to follow the laws, screw with the Constituion, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hundreds? Could you back that up please?
Either way, there are many legit terrorists sitting in Gitmo.
BTW, where in the Constitution does it say we need to provide lawyers etc, to foreign terrorists?

[ QUOTE ]
No they haven't.

[/ QUOTE ]
By the definition of our trials, yes they have.

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently you've missed the numerous findings where people (because of new DNA evidence or whatever) were pulled off death row because they were proven innocent.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is why we have appellate courts as well as orgs such as the Innocence Project.

[ QUOTE ]
There is plenty of doubt as to their guilt, but the court doesn't care.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is whether there is reasonable doubt, not whether there is any doubt.

[ QUOTE ]
You're confusing a legal ruling with truth. They are not one and the same.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm doing no such thing. Our criminal courts convict people on the principal of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Capital cases usually have higher still standards.

[ QUOTE ]
In Bush's case, he's notorious because of the terrible rulings that have happened in his state.

[/ QUOTE ]
These "terrible rulings" have been handed down by a jury of 12, accepted by the prosecution and the judge, accepted by God knows how many appellate courts, and finally by the Gov.

[kurto]

"Exactly why we have appellate courts..." sigh... you don't even try, do you? There is ample evidence that the courts have failed in this respect. ie... the courts didn't think it mattered that a person's lawyer slept through their trial. Does that sound right to you? (I imagine it does.)

"Could and should are two different things. He should follow the recommendations of the jury and judge during the sentencing phase of trial, and not just grant clemency to every person on death row simply because he (hypothetically) didn't like the DP." LOL No one is suggesting 'every person.' There were numerous cases which were questionable. What about those cases?

hmmm... where's your comment on Bush mocking the woman pleading for her life? You seem silent on that one.

"I don't know...perhaps the innocent Iraqis being tortured to death? Perhaps the women who were raped in front of their families? Perhaps the Kurds who've been the victims of ethnic cleansing?" Honestly... its easier to just stop discussing. Is there a Bush supporter who has an ounce of sense? Kurds... years ago... with OUR support at the time. So you can't bring that up to justify a war a decade later. Nothing you mentioned showed why a rush to war was necessary. CAN ANY BUSH SUPPORTER PLEASE HELP THIS GUY OUT? Such a nonsensical argument.

"Tell me exactly where Bush or any other high official in the Bush admin approved torture...." Like I said.. I can't argue with people who either (1) are ignorant of the news or (2) act ignorant. If you're not aware of what I'm talking about, do some research. I'm sure you'll find it.

"Hundreds? Could you back that up please?" Sure... but I'm sure you're capable as well. Look up how many people were let go in the last 2 years.

"Either way, there are many legit terrorists sitting in Gitmo." Great. What about the one's that aren't terrorists? No one's arguing about legit proven terrorists. We're talking about the ones that aren't legit that have little to no recourse under this admin.

"BTW, where in the Constitution does it say we need to provide lawyers etc, to foreign terrorists?" They aren't foreign terrorists... the point is they haven't been shown to be anything. Honestly, you hurt my brain.

"By the definition of our trials, yes they have." You miss the point... if a court says you're guilty of killing someone doesn't mean you actually are guilty of killing that person. Honestly, try thinking things out. Don't just play semantics. Think about what a person is saying and respond to that. A court's ruling can have no relevence to the actual guilt or innocence of a person. (If you're so ignorant to think that a court's ruling always corresponds to 'truth' then please let me know for it will tell me much about you...)

"I'm doing no such thing. Our criminal courts convict people on the principal of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Capital cases usually have higher still standards." Honestly, you make it hard not to want to insult you. Its as if you're 'playing stupid.' Courts have proven people guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... only to later (sometimes after its too late) to show they were wrong. The problem is Texas was that the standards were horrendous. Again... you're either arguing for the sake of argument or you're not thinking.

[kurto]

"They were murderers. Bush was right to kill them...." I think the controversy is that many of these cases were shown to have been real miscarraiges of justice. Laughable trials.

Though I'm arguing with some other fellow, I'm actually a proponent of the Death Penalty. But from what I've read about many of the cases in Texas, they were real travesties of justice.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly why we have appellate courts...

[/ QUOTE ]

So, it's judicial activism when Florida's appellate courts, the 11'th Circuit, and the Supreme Court *all* rule the same way in the Schiavo case, but not when Texas appeals courts decide a lawyer who slept through his client's trial isn't enough to overturn a verdict?

Niiiiice.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
Considering that he had precisely zero jurisdiction, I'd say he did too much.

Show me something in the Constitution that shows that the Executive brach of the Federal Gov't has any authority at all in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
you don't even try, do you? There is ample evidence that the courts have failed in this respect.

[/ QUOTE ]
Apparently not since the death penalty still exists.
But please, bring forth your "ample" evidence...

[ QUOTE ]
the courts didn't think it mattered that a person's lawyer slept through their trial. Does that sound right to you? (I imagine it does.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Somehow I think there's more to it than that...

[ QUOTE ]
LOL No one is suggesting 'every person.' There were numerous cases which were questionable. What about those cases?

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, not very questionable since all the judicial levels involved upheld the guilty verdict.

[ QUOTE ]
hmmm... where's your comment on Bush mocking the woman pleading for her life? You seem silent on that one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now who's being emotional? She's on death row for doing something despicable. Hard for me to have pity on her.

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly... its easier to just stop discussing. Is there a Bush supporter who has an ounce of sense? Kurds... years ago... with OUR support at the time. So you can't bring that up to justify a war a decade later.

[/ QUOTE ]
By your reasoning, we shouldn't have done anything about slavery or segregation because we supported it in the past. Talk about nonsesnical arguments...

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said.. I can't argue with people who either (1) are ignorant of the news or (2) act ignorant. If you're not aware of what I'm talking about, do some research. I'm sure you'll find it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know exactly what you're talking about. You're very wrong and that's why I asked for an exact quote.

[ QUOTE ]
Great. What about the one's that aren't terrorists? No one's arguing about legit proven terrorists. We're talking about the ones that aren't legit that have little to no recourse under this admin.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you could loan the Pentagon your magic machine that determines whether someone actually is a member of Al Qaeda. I'm sure you'd be paid handsomely for it.

[ QUOTE ]
They aren't foreign terrorists... the point is they haven't been shown to be anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are they? They aren't soldiers, so they shouldn't be treated the same as POWs, but they could hold intel that can help. So I say we keep em.

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, you hurt my brain.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure it hurts to think after not doing it for so long. Tylenol should fix you up.

[ QUOTE ]
You miss the point... if a court says you're guilty of killing someone doesn't mean you actually are guilty of killing that person. Honestly, try thinking things out. Don't just play semantics. Think about what a person is saying and respond to that. A court's ruling can have no relevence to the actual guilt or innocence of a person.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not missing the point, I'm just disagreeing with it.
My point is that our system of justice is predicated upon assuming people are innocent and therefore forcing the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are indeed guilty. That's how it works.

[ QUOTE ]
Courts have proven people guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... only to later (sometimes after its too late) to show they were wrong. The problem is Texas was that the standards were horrendous.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps we should just never convict anyone of anything because every now and then mistakes are made. Gimme a break. If you've got a better idea for a judicial system, I'm sure the country would love to hear it. Why you keep insisting that the courts should be held to 100% perfect standards is beyond me.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
So, it's judicial activism when Florida's appellate courts, the 11'th Circuit, and the Supreme Court *all* rule the same way in the Schiavo case, but not when Texas appeals courts decide a lawyer who slept through his client's trial isn't enough to overturn a verdict?

[/ QUOTE ]
Terri Schiavo was on trial for her life w/o ever having committed a crime. A miscarriage of justice in and of itself. But hardly a reasonable comparison to the case you presented. That man was actually on trial for a crime. I don't have the facts of the case that you cite, but something tells me there's more to it than the simplistic veiw you've offered.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Then chew on this

Bush's war on Iraq led to how many innocents being killed?

I'd contend that there are no "innocents" in war. That's why diplomacy is so important. Once the commitment is made to wage war, one must wage war with a singular disregard for human life or risk losing. When we try to sanitize war we run the risk of becoming desensitized to its reality.

[BCPVP]

Interesting food for thought....

[Felix_Nietsche]

Bush overstep his bounds....he did all he could and more than he legally should have..

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/schiavo.washington.ap/index.html/) :
Judge Stanley F. Birch, Jr., a conservative appointed by the former President Bush, wrote a rebuke of Bush and Congress.

He said the action by the White House and lawmakers was "demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people -- our Constitution."


[/ QUOTE ]

The White House is acting silly. Again.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry Jaxmike, given your view of the 14th amendment how did she have any rights at all as against what Florida decided?

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell are you talking about 14th amendment for??