Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (104978)	3/20/2005 12:42:15 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793808

how does your earlier concern about the majority play? This is getting weird. OK, let's try one more time. There is a law, which has been proposed, and for all I know has been passed, or will be passed, and that law, which I haven't seen, is purported to give access to federal courts for persons who wish to have federal courts review cases in which disabled persons are about to be terminated under state law. Do you have a problem with such a law, and if so, why? Personally, I don't have a problem with such a law. I think it is totally within the purview of Congress, as mandated by the Constitution, to make sure that persons are not deprived of life without due process of law, or any other violation of the Constitution. If one federal judge in Florida, or any other state, decides that a law is unconstitutional, either on its face, or as applied in a particular case, that one judge opposes the will of the majority, because it was the majority which passed the law. That ought to be so plain as to be beyond peradventure. None of the above has anything to do with Terri Schiavo, except for the fact that she is a person to whom such a law might apply. Nor does it have anything to do with the merits of her case under such a law, if any. I have no opinion about the Florida law, which I have never read. I never opine about legal matters without hearing both sides of an argument, or more, if there are more than two.