Stick to your guns all you want, but you're wrong. If a judge makes a particularly odious act legal, then that judge has only himself or herself to blame when someone performs that act upon him or her.
Why do you support having a different set of laws for judges than for everybody else? Why should a judge never have to be subject to the laws he or she interprets (or makes, as the case may be)?
In your logic, a judge could make rape legal and you would cry foul if someone then "targeted" the judge for rape.Comment Posted By Sue Dohnim On 29.06.2005 @ 14:25
No American citizen, especially one in government, should ever be above the law. That is how our country is supposed to work.Comment Posted By Sue Dohnim On 29.06.2005 @ 12:36
If we canâ€™t insulate judges from this kind of pressure, what faith will we have in the decisions handed down by judges who are looking over their shoulder to see if thereâ€™s any chance they will personally suffer for interpreting the law?
Did you even read that after you wrote it?
There's a huge difference in some whackjob threatening a judge's life for nothing and a judge suffering the legal consequences of the law he or she interpreted.
It's the same as the difference between some moron threatening to stab Harry Blackman's (Chief Justice in Roe v. Wade) pregnant daughter in the abdomen and Blackman complaining about his never having any grandchildren because his daughter kept choosing to abort.
That's just an analogy; I don't know if Blackman had children or grandchildren.Comment Posted By Sue Dohnim On 29.06.2005 @ 12:33
Your post is exactly on the money, but I don't know why you would be surprised that conservative bloggers are for the most part against this. Most conservatives understand that the freedom of speech applies mainly to offensive speech, because no one cares to silence inoffensive speech. The purveyors of "political correctness," which is the polar opposite of the above philosophy, are almost exclusively leftists.
I agree with Slobokan's succinct assessment.Comment Posted By Sue Dohnim On 23.06.2005 @ 07:35
This is exactly the demonizing (if you disagree with me you are a murderer) and distortion (if being unable to live without a feeding tube is not life support, Ms. Barber’s definition is far from mine) that prevents discussion. The casual and incredibly demeaning assumption that anyone intentionally and willfully “killed” Terry Schiavo, particularly from someone with no personal connection to anyone involved, is disgusting.
It wasn't just the feeding tube, but all hydration and nutrition, oral included, that was removed.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, she couldn't swallow (saliva yes, food & water no,) she would have aspirated food & water and died (a much worse sort of dead than dehydrating her, surely), blah blah blah.Comment Posted By Sue Dohnim On 16.06.2005 @ 16:19
I do not for one minute believe that most spouses would not, when PVS became established and all hope for miracle cure subsides, move on to other romantic interests. That is human. It is what I would want my daughter-in-law to do if my 26-year-old son became PVS, and I would still trust her to carry out my son’s known wishes.
What if your son wished to live, but your daughter-in-law insisted he didn't?
Or what if your son wanted no extraordinary measures taken to prolong his life, but eight years after he fell into a PVS the law was changed to reclassify an ordinary care measure he is receiving as an extraordinary measure?Comment Posted By Sue Dohnim On 16.06.2005 @ 16:12
First and foremost, government does indeed have an interest in insuring that viable life is protected. In the case of protecting life, there is no such thing as personal.
Except for the strange conditional "viable" part, I would say you're exactly right.
The inalienable rights, according to our Founders and to the people who influenced them, are to life, liberty, and property. These are not of equal importance; they are listed from most to least important because of their hierarchy of dependence.
One cannot enjoy one's right to liberty and property without one's life.
One cannot enjoy one's right to property without one's liberty.
Any government which infringes on these rights without due process (i.e., trial by jury,) no matter what euphemism they use to do so (e.g., the "right to privacy" or the "right to die,") is flirting with tyranny.Comment Posted By Sue Dohnim On 16.06.2005 @ 07:46
I'm inclined to agree with Jo's last bit there, except I don't think it's an act. It's more like the Harkonnen situation in Dune, where the Baron puts up Rabon "Beast" Dean (who is merely unleashed to do what comes natural to him,) to make the serfs more receptive to Feyd "Saviour" Hillary.Comment Posted By Sue Dohnim On 9.06.2005 @ 08:34
I don't understand your lumping of Dr. James Dobson in with Wildmon. Is it because you believe that Dobson said Spongebob Squarepants was gay?
This article, from someone who was actually in the audience when Dobson mentioned Spongebob, lays that silliness to rest.Comment Posted By Sue Dohnim On 2.06.2005 @ 10:01
TheMaryHunter: I'm not an expert either, but as far as I can tell, the bill you linked to is still in committee:
Thanks once again for all of the helpful information.Comment Posted By Sue Dohnim On 29.05.2005 @ 19:29
Pages (2) :  2