Thursday, March 24, 2005

Supremes won't hear the Schindler's appeal

Here's the Yahoo story. It seems that at least Kennedy referred the case to the rest of the court.

The way these appeals have been handled by the federal courts make me more aware of how sad our federal courts have become.


  1. I am curious...

    I understand the life issue of Terri Schiavo, and how life is sacred. I am not arguing about that.

    But I am curious what legal problems you see in the decisions that the courst made. As far as I can see, the courts made the appropriate decisions according to the law.

    I am leaving to head out of town, but I will try and check to see what your response it.

  2. Hi Dave,
    What I was trying to say and I probably should have elaborated on is that the courts can often take action/find reasons for ruling certain ways when they like (death penalty for minors, sodomy as a constitutional right, etc.) based on things as ridiculous as international law but when they don't feel like acting, they don't. For example if Texas was about to starve a convicted serial killer to death via starvation you can bet your jockeys that the federal courts would be all over it.

    Amendment 14 section 1 "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    It seems fairly obvious to me that Terri Schiavo has been denied equal protection under the law based on her disability. Starving a woman to death based on the hearsay testimony of her adulterous husband can hardly been seen as due process.

    Have fun at watching the Cubs - too bad no Sammy.

  3. P.S.

    How is being in favor of intentionally killing innocent human beings for their stem cells a prolife position? Would killing people on death row for their hearts, liver, kidneys, etc. be a prolife position?

    "I would love to see a way that we could use all of the embyros that are not currently being used to research them. There is so much potential to save life through embryonic stem cell research."

    Not being used? How is it prolife to use human beings for medical research? Your forgetting that embryos have to be killed for the research to take place.

    How is gun control a prolife issue? How is being in favor of universal health care (which would probably include universal coverage of abortion) a prolife position?

    Sometimes I just scratch my head thinking about the connections that must be occurring in your mind to try to enlarge/morph the "prolife" position to whatever you want it to mean.

  4. I don't have time to answer the questions right now, but I will when I get back.

    But how do you define pro-life? What does that mean for you?