Guess what's next on the table, now that we gave in on this.

[madfloridian]

3 guesses, first two don't count.

DeLay is a hero now. Our party could have told the truth about the legal implications of overturning court rulings....but they did not.

[Cha]

1. I said that in another thread that

delay wanted this to..

"THis is just Wrong in my opinion!

delay is trying to gain some political capital from this and get himself out of the shithouse he put himself into with his non existent "ethics"!

Let's hope this still comes back to bite him..it ain't over yet!

[madfloridian]

3. But all the pro-life talk today....what's next?

That is what I am afraid of. Women's rights are already on the table about contraceptives and abortion.

[mandyky]

8. Even Jeffery Toobin on CNN this AM

said this is a roundabout attack on other pro choice issues. This was on Christian News Network.

[madfloridian]

10. Exactly, and our Democrats are going along.

I am disgusted.

[FreedomAngel82]

24. I was so disappointed

in Mr. Reid. *sigh*

[madfloridian]

20. I found this article and posted it separately. Thanks!

That is what I have been seeing a lot today.
:hi:

[Liberty Belle]

22. CA has a zygote personhood petition being circulated.

I kid you not.

[Nite Owl]

2. I don't know but

this is just sickening. I just turned on the news (ABC) and it's at the top. Their demonstrations covered but the Iraq War protests? No that is not the big news.

[madfloridian]

4. I hate seeing Harkin, Martinez, and Santorum together, nodding heads.

In total agreement. What is going on here?

[Edgewater_Joe]

5. Take A Pill - You Are Overreacting To The Extreme

All that's happened here -- and there's a post on Daily Kos that I'm in agreement on -- is that the Democrats are simultaneously doing something that is morally decent and politically smart: they're agreeing to this bill to take it out of the hands of the vile DeLay and company, who are 99 and 94/100% likely to lose when it gets into federal court, so that when the likely inevitable decision to pull the plug comes, Repunk grandstanding will blow up in their face. And on the odd chance that poor Ms. Schaivo is given more recuscitation, it means that DeLay won't be able to say that the Democrats somehow "killed" her.

The only people who are cheering on the Repunks are the extreme pro-life whackos who wouldn't do the decent thing for this country if it meant their own survival. So let them have their hollow hosanas and their McGwire-esque crocodile tears.

And pray for the soul of Terry Schiavo, who left us long, LONG ago, and is likely looking down at her "saviors" with scorn.

[madfloridian]

6. You take a pill. I am reading threads at Kos as well.

No, I am not over-reacting. Abortion is next. Looks who's is at the podium today. I am sorry, but you were just rude to me.

[madfloridian]

7. And maybe you should read deeper into the Kos threads.

What we did today was not constitutional. The courts in Florida have ruled on this for many years. Congress has no right to do this.

[bettyellen]

13. it's unconstitutional and deeply disturbing. i can't believe anyone would

want to minimize this episode as a smart strategic move for Dems. What a gullible take on things. Take a pill? That's okay honey, you can keep em for yourself.

This should not be going to congress or the courts again, it should be over at this point. talk about frivolous law suits.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

19. "Semi-sane" people?

Maybe you will feel better now. Our Democrats did not have to get involved in this at all. They gave DeLay a righteous stage on which to pontificate.

Now please feel free to express your feelings.

[Clark2008]

21. Hey, now...

I don't always agree with MadFloridian, but I find this person sane.

This deserves an alert.

Mad, you keep fighting, honey, you've got it right... I mean CORRECT (the right is never correct, anymore).

[madfloridian]

23. Thanks.

:hi:

[FreedomAngel82]

25. I agree

If Congress can have a say over this what's next? :\

[madfloridian]

11. You should read that Kos post now. Armando just changed his mind.

Most on the other post disagreed anyway, but now he quotes Reid's statement.

I seldom agree with poster, but on this thread, the one just posted...I do.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/19/175157/173

“I am pleased Senator Frist and I were able to pass the bill that protects the life of Terri Schiavo by allowing her parents to go to federal court. If the House Republicans refuse to pass our bipartisan bill, they bear responsibility for the consequences.”

[bettyellen]

12. take a pill? how about you get a vasectomy? LOL. how rude and thoughtless

some of us are concerned about our reproductive rights... which have been minimized and compromised by giving into this crowd. and we are losing ground here all the time because of statements like yours that show no ability to empathise with the other 1/2 of the population.
what the fuck is morally decent about this? you can sell out your own rights and privleges, not mine, okay?

[madfloridian]

14. Kudos.

:hi:

[bettyellen]

15. back atcha, sweetie!

rude and uninformed. i'm a little over that. what's with all this mad posting by people reacting to one little shred from one little source. f'ing sad there's been so much of that lately.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

18. More than just two of us. "cheap-ass moralizing" is outrageous.

They were doing fine drowning themselves, and our party did not have to step in to help.

Someday I hope they legislate viagra and vasectomies, and oh, boy will there be a howl from men.

Read some of the other topics on this issue today, and there is huge disappointment that our party felt it had to step in here.

I am so used to being insulted now, that it bounces off. Keep it up if you feel better. Some people actually feel better when they try to hurt others. That is such a shame.

[Edgewater_Joe]

36. You DID Note Armando's Correction, I Hope?

That his reaction to the Reid quote came from a bad AP story?

That the quote was from Thursday?

That Reid is not in the country until tomorrow?

And that perhaps you were a bit half-cocked at calling House Dems in bed with the Repunks on this issue?

Hope so.

[madfloridian]

39. Please show me where I referred to House Dems. Reid is Senate.

Not House.

[Tsiyu]

28. Well, edgewater, I guess YOU'll never be pregnant

or female.

Did you know many insurance companies pay for viagra but refuse to pay for contraception for women?

Erection: medically necessary.

Birth control: not necessary if one is a female.

Why don't YOU take a pill that will turn you into a woman for a day? then you can know what true fear is.

[morgan2]

9. people should start using the word "purgatory"

about her condition.

[madfloridian]

26. This article implies Senate Dems voted this way to protect Bill Nelson.

Since he is up for re-election next year. If this be true, then it is wrong, dead wrong. You stand up for things, not give in all the time.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/11183112.htm

SNIP..."As the legislation faltered in Florida, the governor sought federal intervention, and there, critics charge, the politics were truly palpable. Michael Schiavo's attorney leveled a blistering criticism of U.S. Senate Democrats, who went along with the GOP, accusing them of allowing Congress to treat Schiavo like a ``pawn in a political football game.''

Senate Democrats had anguished about stepping in on a family decision, but eventually relented, partly out of fear that the case could adversely affect the reelection hopes of Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, who has looked to position himself as a moderate, a senior Democratic official in the Senate said.

A spokesman for Nelson -- one of the prime targets for Republicans in 2006 -- rejected suggestions that the Senate Democrats went along with their GOP colleagues to protect the freshman senator. Spokesman Bryan Gulley said Republicans had the votes and that Nelson agreed to the legislation only after it was narrowed to affect only Schiavo. (There they go, trusting this bunch of Republicans again.)

''He supported giving the family one final timely appeal in federal court,'' Gulley said.END SNIP

This was a matter of convenience, and it was pandering.
I don't mind if someone posts this separately, because I am too irritated about it right now.

[bettyellen]

30. This is where the Dems are fucking up big time.....

no senate seat is worth the muddled message they give out when they back down on this. it's a scary precdent to set. the operation rescue people do not deserve to be pandered to like this. most americans agree with the husband. what the hell do they have to be afraid of?

[loudsue]

35. Protect Nelson's "re-election"? In a FLORIDA "election"? Duh????

As if the Dems weren't already brain dead themselves! This proves it!

Will they NEVER understand that the VOTING MACHINES, owned by the REPUBLICANS, will get rid of whomever they so desire, whenever they so desire? When was the last time there was a fair election in FLORIDA, for godsake?

THAT is where the brain dead dems in congress need to put their energies. Someone has already cut off THEIR feeding tubes, and they're too brain dead to notice!

:kick::kick::kick:

[PROGRESSIVE1]

37. .

[KennedyGuy]

27. there is no more Democrat party...

what we have here is republican light. I am going to my local election board to leave the party asap.

[adwon]

29. Curious

When you say 'the truth about the legal implications of overturning court rulings,' what exactly does this mean? Is this a general statement or restricted to one example?

If the proposed legislation actually inserts itself into the Schiavo mess, it's likely to be held unconstitutional via Lopez and Morrison for attempting to regulate noneconomic activity. If nothing else, it would be enjoyable to see the most conservative member of the court, Thomas, oppose his party on this one.

If it only provides a cause of action, well that's just silly. It seems that one family member or another would be attempting to sue the state in federal court. If that's the case, they need to read the 11th amendment. People can't even sue states in federal court for violations of federal law, except under very narrow conditions, without the state's consent.

[madfloridian]

31. I am not a lawyer, but judge after judge has ruled in favor of husband...

over and over and over for many years. This has been all over the news here in Florida for many years, and we are just stunned that people are not aware that if Congress steps in .....they appear to be saying that the judges were wrong.

I am not a lawyer, but how can congress say the judges for years were all wrong. The courts were wrong. When did congress start doing this.

It should be considered illegal and unconstitutional, but then again maybe not in our new Bush world.

[adwon]

32. Well

As a general rule, legislatures in a given jurisdiction can override the courts of that jurisdiction. This is something that courts know, accept, and occasionally request. If a legislature is sufficiently annoyed by a court decision, rest assured, they will pass legislation to override it. Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes it's not. It is not, however, presumptively unconstitutional when a legislature overrides a court.

Congressional action may be unconstitutional in this case. It really depends on the legal rationale for the law. If Congress is attempting to create a right, well, the law isn't worth the paper it's printed on. That's presumptively unconstitutional. If Congress is attempting to regulate noneconomic activity using the Commerce Clause, I wish them luck. Not only would be they trying to regulate noneconomic activity, but also in an area of traditional state regulation.

If Congress is just trying to create a federal cause of action, I don't really see the point. The issue has already been litigated. Further, the substantive right is derived from state law (caselaw). I could more readily see a federal court refusing to hear a case based on a such a law than the opposite because the subject matter of the law is a matter of state concern. Besides, the state courts can adjudicate a federal law as well as federal courts (except in certain cases).

I hope that makes sense, but, if not, let me pre-emptively apologize. Maybe if the issue is as confused as I've made it, Congress should do themselves a favor and keep out of it. Inaction might be the better course than ill-considered action.

[madfloridian]

33. It was already settled at state level.

The SC refused to hear it, and then they went to congress. You may use any words you want, but the issue has been settled over and over and over.

If it has been settled, why is congress intervening? If you say this is legal and constitutional, and I am not a lawyer....then I can't argue.

But is dead wrong. It has been in the courts for years.
Here is more on it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1672328&mesg_id=1672328

[adwon]

34. We're not necessarily disagreeing

I said two things.

First, legislatures can override courts. This is a general rule. As always, the test of a general rule is specific cases. Sometimes the rule applies, sometimes it doesn't. Usually though, you don't see Congress overriding state courts. That aspect seems novel.

Second, the constitutionality of a prohibition depends on the legal rationale. I fail to see a possible rationale that would pass constitutional muster.

Congress can't override the Court in certain areas. The best example is individual rights. The problem in this case seems to be that the Supreme Court refused cert. This leaves Congress wiggle room in which they can legislate. However, considering that the wiggle room is very likely to run into other limitations on Congressional power, the whole exercise is just cynical. Passing laws just to see them invalidated is playing political games with the Supreme Court. Personally, I think both houses of Congress should revise their rules to impose costs of litigation on frivolous directly on the authors and sponsors of such a law (yeah I know it's a pipe dream). I'd like to see some of these idiots have to weigh political points scored vs. reimbursing the federal government a few million for scoring those points.

[peacetalksforall]

38. Dems are often helpless.....

Dems woke up late about the hole we got into with an all Republican MSM. Dems are working on it, but we need volume and visibility NOW.

Delay gets the camera again and MSM are there to coddle the issue again.

But we wait for Reid or Pelosi or someone else to go before the camera to plead, but the only cameras on them, most of the time, are C-Spans' cameras.

Dems badly need mouthpieces and a way to get in front with equal time. It is urgent. Dems need someone issuing talking points. Dems need someone who is in joint policy meetings and orchestrating things just like the Republicans.

NOW! It is urgent!

DU and other discussion forums, the blogs, and Air America are making progress.

Is there enough time to educate and protest before they are able to announce another mission accomplished?

[madfloridian]

40. Senate unanmiously intervenes for Terri.

Key word, unanimous.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=7953169

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Sunday unanimously passed legislation aimed at prolonging the life of a brain-damaged woman, Terri Schiavo, by moving the Florida case into the jurisdiction of federal courts.
In a rare Sunday session, the Senate interrupted what was to have been the start of a two-week congressional break, to pass the bill on a voice vote.

After a temporary delay due to objections by some Democrats, the House of Representatives was expected to take up the same legislation late Sunday night and pass the measure early Monday morning."