Quixote1818
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-20-05 10:50 PM
Original message |
| Won't Schiavo case need to pass the Senate before feeding tube |
|
is put back? It's obvious their is NO WAY in hell this will get through the Senate.
|
LisaL
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-20-05 10:51 PM
Response to Original message |
| 1. Didn't it already pass the Senate? |
Orangepeel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-20-05 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
Maddy McCall
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-20-05 10:53 PM
Response to Original message |
| 3. It already passed the senate. |
|
It only has to clear the house, where Dems demanded that a quorum with voice vote be held. Such had to be held the next day, or at 12:01 AM Monday--and I'll be tuning to CSPAN in about, oh, 8 minutes. It's going to get hot.
|
OldLeftieLawyer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-20-05 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
| 4. I've watched for the past hour |
|
We have a lot to be proud of, us Democrats. There have been some spectacular statements made by our side.
Isn't it a shame, though, that we're watching this while kids are dying in Iraq?
|
Maddy McCall
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-20-05 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
I just tuned in. Barney Frank's on now.
|
Quixote1818
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-20-05 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
| 6. You seem very bright to me could you explain the rest of the |
|
procedure after Congress votes on this? Thanks
|
Sydnie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-20-05 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
| 8. blivet** has left orders to be woken should this pass |
|
so he can sign the bill right away.
|
Nikepallas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-20-05 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
| 9. Just wondered if he was going to sign it ASAP or if he would make some |
|
sort of morning ceramony about it?
So would he have cameras covering it tonight if he is awoken at 12:15 am to sign it?
|
Sydnie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-20-05 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
| 10. I wouldn't doubt it one bit. blivet** -- miss a photo op for the |
|
evangelicals pleasure? Never happen!
|
OldLeftieLawyer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-20-05 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
That's the 100 W light bulb I just ate that makes me seem bright.
Well, the damn resolution passed, now it gets printed up, and taken over to the White House, where I'm certain Ratface will make a big deal of signing it in the wee small hours of the morning.
Michael Schiavo's lawyer will, I am certain, file a lawsuit in Federal court, asserting the illegality of this resolution, and asking for a temporary restraining order or injunction to keep the Schindlers from trying to get anything into Federal court.
Through all of this, someone - presumably the lawyer for the Schindlers - is going to file a petition in Federal court, asking to have the court order that the feeding tube be reinstalled.
My best guess is that any Federal judge who gets this is going to toss it, and Mrs. Schiavo will finally be allowed to die. I can't see any Federal judge advocating the desecration of our Constitutionally required separation of powers.
|
Quixote1818
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
| 15. So in other words this whole fucking charade that cost thousands |
|
was pointless. Nice to know our country is in such incapable hands. Thanks for your answer.
|
Sydnie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-20-05 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
by many (Conyers very eloquently for sure), It's sad to be watching this while millions of children go to bed at night hungry.
The repukes that are saying, over and over again ... that "we will be judged on how we treat the lessor of ourselves". Those quotes should be strung together and shown as the recent voting records are displayed. Let them answer to all the vile bills they have just pasted in the last month alone in contrast to the statements they are making tonight!
|
FreedomAngel82
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
| 17. Who all in the Senate voted? |
WillowTree
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #17 |
| 22. The Senate vote was... |
|
Edited on Mon Mar-21-05 02:03 AM by WillowTree
....passed "without objection". It will go down in the records as 100 Yeas, 0 Nays.
|
UTUSN
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-20-05 11:15 PM
Response to Original message |
| 11. This Bill Does NOT Call for Installing the Feeding Tube |
|
Edited on Sun Mar-20-05 11:16 PM by UTUSN
It SUBVERTS our system of government by taking this INDIVIDUAL/FAMILY/local venue and yanking it into the FEDERAL system---------for REVIEW.
Theoretically, a conscientious FEDERAL judge of INTEGRITY might review the HUMONGOUS STATE CASE HISTORY and decide no further action is needed.
Meaning that the wingnut/fundies will APPEAL, probably up to SCotUS. If there is any justice left in our country, the Feds will uphold what the RIGHTFUL State venues have already said.
|
OldLeftieLawyer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-20-05 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
| 13. I think the Federal judge who gets this......... |
|
.........is going to give it the most cursory of looks and dismiss it.
No judge is going to want to go down in history as the asshole who ruled that the Constitution is wrong.
|
FreedomAngel82
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #13 |
| 18. Unless he is paid by the Bush camp |
magellan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Mar-20-05 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
| 14. Hasn't the Supreme Court already said it wouldn't hear this matter? (nt) |
deadparrot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
| 16. Well, the opinion of the courts doesn't mean much after tonight's events, |
FreedomAngel82
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
|
they heard it before and sided with the husband?
|
Quixote1818
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #19 |
| 20. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case |
|
They saw it as a states rights issue and thought they should stay out of it. They have more sense than the Congress does.
|
magellan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #20 |
| 21. I thought I'd read that in thread here, thanks :-) (nt) |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 20th 2013, 03:56 PM
Response to Original message |