For that matter, we can also redefine “punishment” as “instructive remediation”. “Freedom” can be “unfreedom” and “voting” can be “treason”.

We just need a probate judge to make the interpretations for us since we are obviously too stupid to rule ourselves.

But I agree that a constitutional amendment extending the executive pardon power, preferably at both the state and federal levels, to non-criminal judgments resulting in death or long-term confinement is a good idea. It shouldn’t be easier to kill or confine a person who hasn’t done anything wrong than it is to do the same to someone who has.

The framers of the constitution did see a need for a check on the judiciary. Article II, section 2 grants the power of the executive pardon, but only in criminal matters. I think the framers understood that sometimes good law leads to bad results. Where a court sentences a person to death in a criminal proceeding, the president (or governor) has the power to completely over ride the judicial result. I doubt that the framers envisioned that a civil proceeding could result in a death sentence. My recommendation would be to extend the executive pardon to those civil cases where life or confinement are at issue.

I don’t know what would have happenned if President Bush had pardoned Terri Schiavo. I haven’t heard anyone speculate on this topic.

I have to admit I’m devastated by this slashing display of intellect, and humbled by the laser-like precision of this basement-dwelling insight.

I’m not a lawyer personally (and I doubt Xrlx is one, although he/she does sound like some Loyola grads I’ve known) but I read opinions from time to time. One concept I’ve gleaned from this hobby that applies here is the doctrine of “thin gruel”, a sort of argument that’s out there in the same general territory as “skating on thin ice” and “grasping at straws.”

It’s not unlikely that some small and insignificant details of one or more of the decisions and opinions that came down after 15 years of the Schiavo coma was questionable. Whether such an unsettling claim amounts to anything, even if wrong, is another question.

Is the court a “state actor” in resolving civil disputes? Not really.

Any more questions?

[Only one: did you think I was kidding about banning you? Don't bother answering: you can't.]

Funny, too, that he mocks me for claiming that all these judges got it wrong — and Xrlq has (much more politely) gotten on my case for claiming that they got it right.

Me, I’m still trying to figure it out. This state action stuff seems too murky for someone with a day job (okay, I’m on vacation now — so I’m busy vacationing!) and no real background in the area. Give me a day or two and I bet I could figure it out, but I don’t have that kind of time.

Aren’t there any experts on this area of the law out there? Taller order: who don’t have an ideological axe to grind?

On a positive note, the first act of Siegfried was very good.

Just about everything you’ve contributed to my threads, Patterico’s or Dean Esmay’s has proven to be mind-numblingly stupid, but that’s not the reason I’m commenting now. The reason I’m commenting is that not only are your statements idiotic, they also don’t have a f’n thing to do with the topic of this discussion, which is the state action doctrine. In the highly unlikely event that you have anything remotely intelligent to say on that topic (hint: it has nothing whatsoever to do with Terri Schiavo’s alleged state, her alleged deathwish, or anything else about her case in particular), feel free to post it here. If you don’t, then kindly go climb under the rock you crawled out from under. One more off-topic comment, and you will be banned without further warning. You’ve polluted these discussions enough already.

And BTW, the bulimia was well-established.

And BTW, Terri wasn’t ready to compete on American Idol before the feeding pump was turned off.

Really.

Amazing.