But our entire nation calls little dead children in Iraq "collateral damage."  Are our little white American fetuses more precious than little brown Iraqi ones?

Woot!  Getting ready for the March 19 protests!  I even have a few extra days off in case I get arrested.  I hope I get to do a pre-emptive strike on those Protest Warrior fools if they show up.  Smitty'bro is even speaking at it. 

Oh, come on, OS.  Only Rush Limbaugh thinks your initial post isn't loaded.  Most people here are native speakers of the language, which makes it pretty obvious.

But I'll take the bait anyway - at least as to item 1.  I'll have to do some research before addressing item 2.

I am not sure what this court decision in California is that determined that a fetus is not "life" - a quick search did not show anything.  Please post a link.

As to Scott Peterson - he was convicted by a jury, not a judge.  He was convicted pursuant to a murder statute that specifically addresses the murder of unborn children, a statute that was enacted by the California legislature, consisting of legislatures elected by the voters.  It has nothing to do with judicial decisions.

bravecoward wrote: badsmitty and os call eachother when they post cuase they are always in pairs

We live in the same duplex. 

Rypaintball wrote: dead children and other innocent people will occur in war, its jiust wahat happens when cities are bombed but our "little hite american children" arent more improtant but if someone was bombing the US then there would be the same outcome and u pretesters are all the same u have nothing better to do and u complain too much ntohing will ever be perfect **edited** happens soget over it!

Thank you.  I appreciate your validation of my point.

Ok - as to point 2.

Terry Schiavo unfortunately did not have a living will, which makes it a bad case study for right-to-die questions, because it raises factual issues.

But - HAD she had a living will, the tube would have been removed a long time earlier, because long-established state law in Florida respects such documents.  The only question here was whether the hubby was lying or not.  While an interesting question, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the underlying law.

The only relevant court decision in the Schiavo case was the decision to overturn the last-minute-and-obviously-inconstitutional law enacted specifically to address this particular case.  Those types of laws have always been unconsitutional, and for good reason.

So the Schiavo case also has nothing to do with the judiciary.

As to the death penalty - TMK courts have overturned specific death penalty statutes only as they relate to minors and the mentally disabled.  I do not believe they have ever stated that the death penalty itself is a problem, just the application.  Unless I am misinformed, your claim here is simply wrong.

Similarly, two consecutive Illinois governors independantly concluded that they had to stop executions in Illinois, not because the death penalty was itself wrong, but because it was being unfairly applied.  This had absolutely nothing to do with the judiciary either.

So, in conclusion - I don't see how either points 1 or 2 relate to your general hard-on for the judiciary.

Oh - and I forgot to mention that the Florida law regarding living wills was also enacted by the legislature...

So please explain how ANY of this has ANYTHING to do with the judiciary.

Ok, you raise legitimate questions as to the relationship between murder laws, abortion laws, right-to-life laws, and death penalty laws.

Those are complex issues and certainly worth discussing, and I will be happy to do so.

But what does that have to do with courts interpreting legislative matters?  There was no judicial interpretation in any of the cases you mentioned, only legislative law enforced as written.

Peterson:  No judge involvement.  Not in the law, not in the guilty verdict, not in the death penalty.  All voters, legislators, and jurors.  No judges.

Schiavo:  No judge involvement in the creation of a law that very clearly states that a person may elect to die.  The judge did not create or interpret the law.  The ONLY judge involvement is as to the matter of fact - NOT law or policy - of whether Schiavo had in fact directed her own death.  If the facts indicate that she did, it WOULD be judicial activism (which I know you hate) for the judge to do anything other than order her death.

Living wills are enforced every day.  If the facts supported the judge's decision, they did.  I wasn't in the courtroom, and neither were you, so we don't really know what the testimony was.  But to make a factual conclusion based on your obvious prejudice against living wills and euthanasia is the exact same thing as that judicial activism you hate so much.

You can't lay these at the feet of the evil judges, OS - you just can't.

OS now wrote: I lay blame each on those of power, be it judge, polititian or citizen who under the guise of law takes a life that may one day after birth that many of these people try to prevent, be a benifit to society, or living human being in todays era of medical wonders may wake, and as of today does not have that chance because of an agenda.

OS original post wrote: This has been a confussing time for our judiciary, and the decesions are all over the board, with no sense or sanity...  ...The courts of the same state ...the court previously stated ......the court has previously stated ... ...the courts in many states have also agreed, and stopped the death penalty....yet now a court has determined that a young lady in florida is to be put to death for the "crime" of trusting her husband...the court agrees with him sactioning this "death sentence".

So your position now is that it has NOT been a confusing time for the judiciary, but instead that the millions of people around the world who support living wills are ... something?

Have you stepped away from your position that this is all the judiciary's doing?

The Supreme Court is ruining the country? Wow what a bad statement.

Anyways. In my perspective, Peterson should not have gotten the death penalty, mainly because I am against it. As well, laws binding those in California do not match Florida, leaving certain things irrelavant. However, the fact being OJ and Robert Blake got off, while Peterson was convicted on circumstantial evidence is mind boggling.