My 2 cents about congress and Terri Shiavo

[AlCzervik]

My feeling is that when congress passed that law for her they new full well that it wold be thrown out by the judiciary as unconstitutional. The GOP has a farm team of constitutional lawyers that I'm sure they consulted with so i think the whole point was to take heat off Delay and let the GOP shine a national spotlight on "Activists judges" which works nicely for them in light of upcoming Bush judicial nominees. So in the end it really had nothing to do with Terry Shiavo.

[peacetalksforall]

1. I think it is worse than you describe. They want LAW-ON-DEMAND.

That is, they want (their) law on their demand. They even want it to be selective according to the person or agenda. They want to change the constitution and one of the ways they are going to do it is by trying to make us think our system has broked down. But, they are the ones trying to break it down...just as the DeLay gang pretended they were Miami-Dade residents and went to the government building and pounded on the door demanding that there not be a second count of votes in 2000. They won.

They will DO ANYTHING and any Dem who goes along with it is a traitor.

They absolutely want to take away and replace our Constitution and Bill of Rights. And it means rewards for corporations (including media), military brass, banking, and religious fundamentalists.

[demo dutch]

2. Duh... that was a given!

[AlCzervik]

4. Thanks for your imput.

[adwon]

3. It wasn't overturned

The law was questionably unconstitutional, but not definitely. I think they failed to read the relevant law on the subject. Scalia himself had said that this type of case had no place in the Supreme Court. My suspicion is that they forgot that Antonin sometimes believes his own hype.