Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

QUIT TALKING ABOUT ONE WOMAN.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
rocktop15 Donating Member (376 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:01 PM
Original message
QUIT TALKING ABOUT ONE WOMAN.
Her case is tragic.......yes.

There are about 100,000 people in Iraq who are dead. Why don't we talk about them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. Have at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. No one is stopping you
But please don't tell people what to talk about or not to talk about. It's rude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katinmn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
19. No, those of you who are obsessing about Schiavo are monopolizing DU
Some of us care about the war, environment, education, economy and other issues.

Can you at least stop starting a new thread every second?

You have fallen for the right wing's diversion tactic hook, line and sinker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. Then start threads on them or kick up past threads
I can focus on more than one issue and I have by my posts on different threads.

Beside, this is one of the things I care about. I will talk about it.

I do not seek to control the conversation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:02 PM
Original message
We're talking about a civil rights issue that applies to ALL of us
whether you understand that or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'll talk about whatever I please, thankyouverymuch.
But thanks for your interest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. I have been talking and typing til I'm blue in the fingers..... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
5. Maybe we should just talk about nothing but her for three and a 1/2 years.
Then, George W. Bush will have nothing else to show for his term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katinmn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
20. Maybe when the admins get back from the weekend they will
Edited on Sun Mar-20-05 11:48 PM by katinmn
create a new forum for Schiavo so that the whole board isn't monopolized by one Right Wing propaganda stunt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
6. Here's why the Schiavo issue is important...
I said this in another thread yesterday. But I'll say it again in this thread.

The Schiavo case matters to each and every one of us. There are some very fundamenal issues at stake here; mainly, the right of every American to make decisions regarding their own health.

If we allow the Congress to go down this road, the slippery sloap will continue.

Think about it: If you were diagnosed with cancer, and decided you did not want chemotherapy, do you want Tom Delay intervening to force you to have chemotherapy?

Well, that's exactly what we are headed for, if Congress gets its way in the Schiavo case.

That's why this matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrustingDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. with respect, a response to...
""The Schiavo case matters to each and every one of us. There are some very fundamenal issues at stake here; mainly, the right of every American to make decisions regarding their own health.""

you're living in a fantasy. and you know it. Your rights went out the WTC windows on Sept 11.
bush gives about much shit about your health and welfare than he did about the 120,000+ iraqi's he killed, and they weren't braindead. Suffering majorly from 12 years of sanctions and bombings and DU filth, yes.

You are absolutely right, but powerless. The decisions are now made for you. Soak that in and get Angry, soak that in and Realize what beasts you are fighting. Whatever rights you thought you had are swirling down the toilet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Unfortunately, you are right
The U.S. government (I don't even say "our" government anymore) pretends that American citizens have all these rights, and that we are a shining example of freedom and democracy to other parts of the world.

But it's a load of crap. And that saddens me. I really don't recognize my country anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. More importantly than that.
This is about congress flagrantly violating the 10th amendment. This is about states rights versus the federal goverment.

See my post below!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. EXACTLY!
Edited on Sun Mar-20-05 10:46 PM by journalist3072
You know, I'm not sure I know at all what the Republican Party stands for anymore.

There was a time I knew what it stood for (even if I disagreed with most of it).

However, one of the Republican Party's main talking points used to be that they believed in LESS government intrusion in people's lives, not more. Then presto, here they go intervening in the Terry Schiavo case.

And of course, they used to talk about states' rights. And I'll admit, being an African-American, the term 'states' rights' is a very "loaded" term for me. And it's loaded because you had a lot of places, particularly in the South, who used "states rights" to say they could keep on practicing segregation in the schools, despite Supreme Court decisions.

So I've always looked at states' rights with a weary eye. But the Republican Party has always championed it.

Moreover, you always have these right-wing zealots talking about their disdain for activist judges. Yet, they are going to go right to those same activist judges they claim they deplore, to try to get Schiavo's feeding tube reinstated.

So I can't figure out the Republican Party these days. What do they stand for?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. They are just a bunch of greedy, opportunistic creeps!
They stand for nothing more than greed and hate.
I believe they have begun to believe their own spin and think that the religious right fanatics are the most powerful base in the nation. They are not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnfound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #6
21. I don't think he would intervene; I think he's only doing it now to
create a wedge issue to distract and divide the country yet again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitka Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. Then start a post about it and ignore the rest.
This is a very big deal, bigger than the "one woman". It's about YOUR rights too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous44 Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
9. exactly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
11. Stop thinking this is about just one woman and not about my
constitutional rights! Can you not multi-task?

The Schiavo case is no longer about just one woman, it is about Congress interfering in the operations of the states. Florida law was followed, Florida Courts decided and the federal government has no authority to interfere with the action or to pass this resolution.

This is state's rights versus the federal government and is an example of the members of congress violating their sworn oaths to protect and follow the Constitution. Bills of Attainders are illegal and acts of legislation aimed at individuals, generally for the purpose of punishing an individual without a trial, are bills of attainders.

In this case though, a special piece of legislation has been crafted solely to federalize the case of Terry Schiavo, trumping state sovereignty and the 10th amendment. Thus the members of Congress that vote for this resolution are violating their oaths of office and are not upholding and protecting the Constitution.

Additionally, the GOP's has been on the band wagon complaining that the judiciary is in effect legislating from the bench, but with this resolution they will be guilty of “Legislative Adjudication” usurping the rulings of the Florida State Court that followed the Florida State Laws.

You can use this site and change the message of the email to voice your concerns that Congress has decided that the Constitution is not important.
http://go.sojo.net/campaign/morally_bankrupt_budget/step1.tcl

Or use this site: http://www.59millionstrong.com/

Call your senators and representative now!
Call Congress at (202) 224-3121 or use this number (if it still works)
1-877-SOB-U-SOB (1-877-762-8762)




"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." --10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States


Bill of Attainder

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:

* Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
* Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
* U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
* Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
* Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).

http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm



This is not about Schiavo - this is about the Constitution and the continuing efforts of the repukes to violate the Constitution and to erode our rights and the rights of the states.

You should be upset about that, imho!


How about Scalia’s words from his concurrent opinion in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261, where a woman in PVS sought (through her guardians) to terminate her life.

...I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide -- including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless,"...
(snip)
<**2861> The second asserted distinction -- suggested by the recent cases canvassed by the Court concerning the right to refuse treatment, 497 U.S. at 270-277 -- relies on the dichotomy between action and inaction. Suicide, it is said, consists of an affirmative act to end one's life; refusing treatment is not an affirmative act "causing" death, but merely a passive acceptance of the natural process of dying.
.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/88-1503.ZS.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
13. Just one woman - like Rosa Parks was just one woman.
Nothing to take note of at all!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasSissy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
15. We can talk about a number of subjects simultaneously, can't we? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktop15 Donating Member (376 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Good points raised by all.
I realize the Constitutional effects this case has.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
18. Quit Telling Us What to Talk About n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
22. Quit demanding us to do what YOU want us to.
This is also about:

*Violation of seperation of powers

*Trumping States Rights

*Widdling away at Right to Privacy over our bodies using this woman with no cerebral cortex to redefine the timeline of when abortions are legal---it will happen. "We have to protect the most vulnerable in our society, even if they are blastocysts with no brains."

*The HYPOCRISY of the Repuke party

:puke:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
24. Use the X n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 04:39 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC