The Republicans are the party that say they favor states' rights.
Well the Schiavo incident reveals that Republican support for states' rights is a fraud. Interfering with the right of Florida's courts to resolve the issue, Republicans in Congress passed a special law allowing Schiavo's parents to bring a lawsuit in fedearl court.
Ronald Reagan often quoted Thomas Jefferson who said "the government governs best that governs least." Well here we see the Republicans ignoring the words of Reagan and giving us some extra government when the state of Florida is perfectly capable of dealing with this issue itself.
See this editorial at USA Today.
It's not unusual for the republicans to toss out the "states' rights" rhetoric when they need to press their agenda, which always takes precedence even if it demands flip-flopping on their fundamental tenets.
Posted by: SheaNC | March 22, 2005 at 03:32 PM
Wrong again!
Yes, Governing less is governing better ... but when the State Government (Judiciary, specifically) violates it's duties it IS the Federal Government's job to attempt to right the situation. This is especially true in cases of life or death. I've got quite a few references, if you care to read them?
And note that the preservation of life is Conservatism's most fundamental tenet.
Glad to see you are not trying to politicize the murder of this poor woman.
/TJ
... NIF
... The Wide Awakes
Posted by: TJ | March 23, 2005 at 10:00 AM
So, TJ, it appears you're not one of those republican "states' rights" people. Also, it's too bad that party doesn't share the conservative tenet of the preservation of life in other instances.
Posted by: SheaNC | March 23, 2005 at 03:37 PM
Republicans are in favor of the death penalty and war. So "pro-life" is an incorrect description of their position, but one they like because it sounds better than their real position which is really pro-punishment. Women are punished for having sex before marriage. And foreign nations are collectively punished for daring to oppose the U.S.
Posted by: Abigail | March 23, 2005 at 05:10 PM
Interesting. If I understand this correctly, Republicans are hypocritical because they have taken this case to the Federal bench and the Democrats are just as hypocritical because they want this to stay at the state level?
And, Abigail, don't all countries punish other countries for opposing them? Isn't this one of the basics of being a sovereign nation, the fact that you need to protect yourself from others when they don't "agree" with you? Aren't protectionist policies, such as Canada banning US beef because one cow may have contracted mad cow disease, just part and parcel of international relations?
And if you're going to say I'm trivializing your point of our "evil" incursion into Iraq, I might point out that Hussein's military launched some 300 attacks on our planes while our planes were policing the no fly zone established by that darling of the left, the United Nations. No amount of sanctions or talk stopped that, but, guess what? A hundred thousand Marines stopped it.
Posted by: J6Pk | March 24, 2005 at 02:12 PM
SheaNC : "you're not one of those republican "states' rights" people" ... I though my comments made it quite clear that I am a "states' rights" person, but if not let me say it directly - The Federal Government's involvement in *anything* should be as limited as possible, because in general it just mucks things up further. (Reference Medicare, Welfare, Social inSecurity, etc. for examples of total Cluster-F's.) An exception to this 'almost no involvement' would be when another branch of the government, or in this case a branch of one state's government, is violating its duty to the people.
Abigail : We(Republicans / Conservatives) are "pro-punishment" when someone is guilty of something. So yes - I support the death penalty for Murder, Rape, Child Molestation, etc. I suppose you prefer to send them to jail for a few years so they can get out and molest/murder again (reference the recent Lunsford case if you need an example of what this leads to; and for the record - how comfortable would you be with a 'registered offender' living in your neighborhood?). We are pro-life when it comes to protecting innocents ... and we are not "pro war" so much as we refuse to be totally "anti war", and thank God for that - someone in this world has to stand up against EVIL (not just people we disagree with, but outright evil) and the Useless Nations sure doesn't cut the mustard. How many times must they allow a homicidal dictator be in violation, all the while covertly supporting his policies??
/TJ
... NIF
... The Wide Awakes
Posted by: TJ | March 25, 2005 at 08:05 AM
I was going to post a comment about your writings here abigail....but this issue went far beyond states rights.....I have been so busy with this issue that I haven't been around in a few days on your blog...and I see I haven't missed anything.
You and sheaNC are completely heartless morons...(yes I stooped to the lefties name calling bit)...imbeciles...it amazes me that you continue to breath without concentrating on it.
America had lost her soul....and it was your party leading the charge.....
Posted by: Kender | March 27, 2005 at 01:59 AM
Hey Great !!!
Its working now. Thanks man….
Posted by: BassMach | November 24, 2006 at 04:20 AM