Judge strikes down Jeb Bush's brain-dead woman law

[Western Deity]

"The right to die should be an inalienable right."

That is correct...

 

[KenH]

and in hell for 14 years

I wonder how you know that.

 

[PatrickM]

The republicans cry for less government, meanwhile the brain dead Bush brothers really want the opposite.

Please. In your hate for the Bush family, must you be so obsurd as to politicize something as sensitive as this.

What is most bothersome is having another activist jurist who pulls reasons out of thin air, rather than the Constitution, in order to push his/her personal agenda.

"Judge W. Douglas Baird wrote that the law is unconstitutional "because it is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the governor and because it unjustifiably authorizes the governor to summarily deprive Florida citizens of their constitutional right to privacy."

Ah, another right added under the "penumbra" of this "mystical right to privacy" (not specified in the 9th Amendment). Actually, it is the right of privacy, as "created" in Roe v Wade.

How the judge made the quantum leap from the reasoning in Roe to this is quite astonishing, considering, again, these actual words are not found in the Constitution, nor it's amendments.

Baird also wrote that "by substituting the personal judgment of the governor for that of the patient, the act deprives every individual who is subject to its terms of his or her constitutionally guaranteed right to the privacy of his or her own medical decisions."

To reiterate, how did the judge know the governor was substituting the personal judgments of her? Only by the hearsay testimony of her husband.

And instead, we substitute the personal judgement of Judge?

 

[theeyesoftammyfaye]

How the judge made the quantum leap from the reasoning in Roe to this is quite astonishing, considering, again, these actual words are not found in the Constitution, nor it's amendments.

miranda isn't found in the constitution or subsequent amendments, do you think we shouldn't have our miranda rights as well?

 

[AngelusSax]

miranda isn't found in the constitution or subsequent amendments, do you think we shouldn't have our miranda rights as well?

I think we could have these rights and not call them Miranda rights.

 

[theeyesoftammyfaye]

I think we could have these rights and not call them Miranda rights.

my point was, what the miranda ruling actually says does not appear in the constitution explicitly, either. should they, therefore, be void as well?

 

[PatrickM]

my point was, what the miranda ruling actually says does not appear in the constitution explicitly, either. should they, therefore, be void as well?

Well, it's rather implicit in the 5th Amendment, where "No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . ."

In Miranda, a confession was coerced from him without his explicit understanding of his 5th Amendment right not to be a witness against himself.

This follows a logical line with the actual words of the 5th Amend. The phrase "rights of privacy" were inserted as an interpretation of the 9th Amend. in which "privacy" is no where mentioned.

 

[notto]

Ah, another right added under the "penumbra" of this "mystical right to privacy" (not specified in the 9th Amendment). Actually, it is the right of privacy, as "created" in Roe v Wade.

The ruling references the Florida State Constitution which does contain more rights to privacy than the federal constitution specifically the right to be "free from governmental intrusion into the persons private life".

It also was found to violate much of the language in the Florida constitution related to the powers of the governor and legislature. It was poor legislation and was rightly found unconstitutional.

 

[Sociopath4Jesus]

... another activist jurist ...

A Republican activist jurist. Noted for future reference.

Incidentally, the "emanations and penumbras" are from Griswold, not Roe. But as notto said, this is a state case, not a federal one.

 

[ThePhoenix]

NO! It is the taking of a life. . .why can anyone not see that? She is alive. The feeding tube and water is keeping her from dying a painful death. How would you feel if you were dependent on others for being nourished. . .and someone decided you would be better off dead so they stopped feeding you and giving you water?

That many years being unable to move, speak, or do anything? I'd want to die. Very badly. And if I'd made my wishes known, then I hope that they'd be respected.

 

[Spike~]

I wonder how you know that.

Being trapped in a broken mind, and a decaying body for 14 years, being completely removed from life, but still living. Hell isn't just about physical pain.

And btw, the 9th Admendment doesn't specify any paticular rights. It's job is to protect rights that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. And honestly, I've never met a person who thought that ppl should have a right to privacy.

 

[PatrickM]

A Republican activist jurist. Noted for future reference.

Interesting, thank you.

Incidentally, the "emanations and penumbras" are from Griswold, not Roe. But as notto said, this is a state case, not a federal one.

I didn't say emanations and penumbras were from Roe, indeed they are from Griswold.

I was pointing out that the rights emanating from such an abiguous penumbra were extended to create the also ambiguous "right of privacy" in Roe. And this emanating right of privacy keeps "expanding", to include the philosophy used in the FL decision.

However, as correctly noted, this is all a FL issue.