Annie quotes someone named John in DC:
Newsflash people. As I suspected, it’s, once again, the GOP judges who are staking out the position that Terri Schiavo should be permitted to finally die with dignity. Not only is the Florida judge a big ole Republican, but of the 3 appellated court judges deciding on this yesterday, the dissenter (i.e., agreed with the religious right) was a Clinton appointee, and the two judges who said it’s time to let Terri go were a Bush and a Clinton apppointee.
But oh, it gets even better. When an emergency appeal is filed with the US Supreme Court, it’s filed with one justice who gets to decide if they’ll take up the case. Well, last time the appeal was made to conservative Justice Kennedy, A REAGAN APPOINTEE, and rather than simply accept the appeal like a good Republican clone, he instead referred it to the entire court for THEM to decide. The entire court, the majority of which is republican appointees, voted it down.
Let me reiterate that. A Reagan judge declined to take the appeal – i.e., declined to save Terri – then the majority Republican appointed US Supreme Court declined as well.
So now the religious right and congressional republicans think even Reagan appointed judges are too activist and too liberal. Then who IS proper to be a judge if even a Reagan appointee is too liberal? Or, is the problem simply that the religious right and the GOP won’t accept ANY judge that doesn’t rubber stamp any and all of their extreme views?
Yeah, yeah, whatever. Look, as almost everyone knows, I don’t believe there is any difference between the two political factions. They both work towards the same ends, and their purpose is to take turns playing good cop and bad cop for their respective constituencies, both of which are dumb enough to repeatedly fall for the act, ad infinitum.
The Schiavo situation demonstrates one half of how the political leadership plans to solve the demographically doomed Social Security program. The meeting today between the three would-be regional governors of the future pan-American superstate demonstrates the other half. So, the good news is that you’ll be assured of receiving your retirement benefits, the bad news is that you won’t be collecting them quite as long as you might like.
I’m just wondering, if someone were to lock a judge in a closet and deprive him of food and water, would it be murder? Apparently not in the eyes of our legal system. And quite a few of those fellows are fairly old coots… the moral imperative suddenly becomes clear.
Starve a judge for Social Security!