Dec. 9, 2013 |
24° Overcast with Haze
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
Gee, there's a shock.
Stegall is a decent writer, probably going to use his writing skills for new bills and mandates. Bet he can write up some decent speeches for his friends.
Brownback, through his henchman Kensinger, uses Koch millions to buy a compliant legislature. Then he moves on the judiciary and pretends to look the other way while his partner in crime Kobach does everything possible to suppress the public's ability to restrain an extremist agenda.
If the party affiliations were reversed every Republican in the state would be screaming "Dictatorship!"
Since the full context is not being discussed, I'll share what was stated at the hearing today.
Stegall testified at the hearing that the question posed regarding forcible resistance was whether it is morally permissible for a father to give his daughter who was dying of dehydration a drink of water after a court has said no. To give her a drink would be forcible resistance. I guess Sen. Hensley would try to stop the father from giving the drink of water to the dying daughter. By the way, Stegall also stated that the father had to be willing to accept punishment from the authorities if he gave the drink of water to his dying daughter. Hensley left that out too...go figure
Hensley needs to look at himself in the mirror and see what he's turning into.
"......her family, friends, and members of their communities of care—are morally free to contemplate and take extra-legal action as they deem it necessary to save Terri’s life, up to and including forcible resistance to the State’s coercive and unjust implementation of Terri’s death by starvation"
Where does it say anything about a drink of water. What a bunch of intellectually dishonest nonsense. Everyman, you need to look at yourself in the mirror.
you really have left out all the important details -- the decade of care that her husband provided and his decision being attacked by outsiders such as Liar Sammy Brownback. There was no way to save the woman. Your silly water example is not one that fits the actual facts, if it might really matter to you.
A drink of water? She wasn't able to drink water. She was being fed and hydrated through tubes.
I saw his example of giving a drink of water as "forcible resistance" published elsewhere. But I also saw that Stegall said he is a champion of using/interpreting the "plain meaning of words." I wish someone on the committee would have asked him for his view of the plain meaning of "forcible resistance."
Yes , and ask him to explain how "Forcible Resistance" is a type of "Civil Disobedience". It is Disobedience, but not civil." Forcible" is the Key word here. "Passive Resistance" would fall under "Civil Disobedience"." Forcible Resistance" implies physically acting against a person, statute, law ,or policy in a forcible way(i.e. against their will or against the law). That could land you in Jail on a number of charges. "Civil Disobedience" such as Protests or Marches are Protected under our Constitution." Forcible Resistance" is not. A nominee for such an important position should know the difference.
Liar Sammy Brownback, as senator, was one of the outsiders that decided the husband (who had taken care of Terry for years) was not to be allowed to make the decisions about her care. Again, as with women confronting health issues, Brownback and Stegall make it clear they would place outsiders between a woman and her doctor. They are dishonest. Sammy has lied about almost everything he has done. Even one of his board of regents appointments lied about his political party so Sammy could add another Republican to the Regents.. Stegall is not telling the truth about what he will do. I'll bet $100 bucks on that...
Yesterday's confirmation hearing confirms only one thing: the system for nominating appeals judges is broken. If the LJW had not published the story on the Schiavo editorial, would it have become public knowledge? Mr. Stegall and the governor's office certainly did nothing to make it public in advance so that it could be addressed.
As a poster above has noted, Stegall misrepresented the editorial as being simply about whether it was right for the father to give his daughter a drink of water. Giving her a drink of water would not "save her life"--the goal that Stegall and his co-signees used to justify law-breaking actions.
Further, we should remember the context of the time the editorial was written. Protestors were arrested for trying to cross picket lines with cups of water, which hardly seems to have been "forcible resistance." However, one of the types of forcible resistance that was being discussed was a Michigan militia leader's call for an unarmed militia to storm the hospice and take her to a safe house (http://articles.petoskeynews.com/2005-03-30/militia_24037822). Would Mr. Stegall have advocated this action? We will never know, thanks to the rushed and incomplete vetting. (Mr. Stegall also suffered when Senator Hensley incorrectly asserted that Stegall had attended a meeting of secessionists; if Mr. Hensley had taken the time to do a careful reading, he would have realized his accusation was wrong and unfair.)
Finally, Mr. Stegall referenced the tradition of civil disobedience in the U.S. That's true, but Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, who was referenced several times yesterday in the discussion, was slow to recognize the validity of civil disobedience and always abhorred any use of force to carry it out.
Ultimately, we shouldn't be arguing about this here. The governor's office and the legislature should have aired the issue thoroughly, with testimony from experts for both sides.
Experts? Hmmm not likely.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·