SURPRISE! SOMEONE REMEMBERED THE CONSTITUTION
Yesterday, I posted a blog that essentially reminded readers that the Supreme Court that voted to give GeeDubya the White House was the same band of bretheren that couldn't be trusted to do what was right and decline to hear the Terri Schaivo case.
For once, it gives me great pleasure to state that the Supreme Court actually remembered and read the U. S. Constitution and remembered how much they supported States' Rights. Their refusal to hear this case (for the fifth time) was a good ol' fashioned pimp slap to the Bush Administration; the GOP thugs attempting to use their own "weapon of mass distraction" to get the heat off that cockroach serving in Congress as Majority Leader, and his foibles; not to mention the truckload of DLC members who trotted back to DC to vote to interfere with a personal family decision.
Now, they want to get revenge on the Court for adhering to the concept of governmental checks-and-balances, by getting rid of the filibuster and pushing through Bush's whack-job judicial nominees.
We can breathe a little easier today - the Supreme Court, despite having Thomas and Scalia gracing its bench, did the right thing. But we can't rest on our laurels for too long - this issue needs to be used for opponents of the DLC members in campaign issues from now until 2006.
It might have been better if the GOP had been allowed to subpeona Terri Schiavo and put her in a room at the Rayburn or Cannon Buildings with a C-Span Camera trained on her, just so the Republicans, along with their Republican-lite DLC buddies could be allowed to stoop to new lows and give new meaning to the phrase "looking foolish".
1 Comments:
I'm sorry your bitterness towards the whole deal precludes you from allowing full debate on this issue.
I wrote about this issue because I HAVE done my homework. As in having to deal with a similar issue with a loved one who died and told me in no uncertain terms that they did not want to be kept alive by artificial means.
Who can say what they would do in this situation; side with the spouse or the in-laws? All I was trying to communicate is that the Schiavo affair was a private, family issue, and Congress had no right to stick their noses in it. While I may be biased towards Michael Schaivo because of my own experience, IMO, while I believe the Schindlers are loving parents, having a nut case like Randall Terry as their spokesperson does not have them coming out smelling like a rose, either.
If we say we trust God, then we can also trust Him to know WHOSE LYING. My only concern is that Congress keeps their noses out of it.
Post a Comment
<< Home