Strange Brouhaha

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Oh yeah!

And plus! In that Schiavo "law"! Where have we seen this before? A special law which is only meant to apply one time to one situation. Anyone? Anyone? Anyone?

That's right, kids! "Bush vs. Gore."

There again, we had a ruling which, we were explicitly told, was only meant to apply one time, to one case.

Apparently we have been under dictatorial decree for longer than we thought.



  • (Josh) It's quite common for a judicial decision to be explicitly limited to the facts of the specific case in front of the court. It's been that way since the inception of our legal system, and I wouldn't find it too troubling. Not really comparable to both houses of Congress enacting legislation that specifically deals with one person (although if I had to guess, I'd bet that it's happened before, just under completely different, much more innocuous circumstances).

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:25 PM  

  • Oh! Sorry about that. Just goes to show: reading essays with little to no understanding of the legal precedents to which they refer is a dangerous thing. (I remember reading a criticism of Bush v. Gore which specifically singled out the fact that it was not meant to apply to any other situation as evidence of its bad faith.)

    Thanks for the correction.

    Um, by the way, can you recommend a specialist in living wills? :)

    By Blogger Savannah, at 1:25 PM  

  • (Josh) My living will specifies that I get TWO feeding tubes, cause I'm just that selfish.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:35 PM  

  • And will you require yourself to be stationed in an SUV with its engine perpetually running? :)

    By Blogger Savannah, at 7:14 AM  

  • (Josh) I didn't read this whole thing, but here's what some pro-wrestler dude had to say about the case.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home