Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Courts still need restraint - (Tom Delay's remedy; impeach judges, or change the law?)
BOSTON HERALD.COM ^ | APRIL 20, 2005 | GUY DURST

Posted on 04/20/2005 4:02:56 PM PDT by CHARLITE

The Terri Schiavo case so outraged House Republican leader Tom DeLay that he has all but declared war on the judiciary. Heaven knows judicial arrogance needs discussion, but a politician under siege for alleged ethics violations who is upset over a single outcome that two-thirds of the country agrees with is not the person to get discussion going.

After federal courts refused to act in the Schiavo case despite the new jurisdiction that Delay helped create, DeLay said the courts had ``run amok'' in abortion and school prayer cases. Congress, he said, ``must make sure the judges administer their responsibilities.''

Some conservative activists started muttering about impeaching Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy (he's the author of a few recent decisions they don't like).

Other GOP leaders were aghast, fearing that the hullabaloo would threaten their effort to win Senate votes on judicial nominees threatened with filibuster. And sky-is-falling editorial writers wondered if the judiciary would survive.

The uncomfortable fact is that DeLay is on to something. Judges at all levels all over the country long have been throwing precedent and logic to the winds to reach results they want. In Massachusetts we recall federal Judge W. Arthur Garrity's failed experiment in running the Boston schools and our Supreme Judicial Court's more recent discovery of a ``right'' of gays to marry. We are not alone.

Activist judges seem to have forgotten that their decisions must be judged reasonable both by people who don't like the result and people who do. Case in point: Kennedy's opinion outlawing the death penalty for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds. Using the trend of laws in other countries to justify it strikes us as unreasonable indeed.

There are a number of tools that can be used legitimately against out-of-bounds judges. (Cutting court budgets is not one.) The Constitution grants Congress power over the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The framers thought impeachment was the remedy for judges guilty of ``a series of deliberate usurpations'' - a series, not a single case (``The Federalist,'' No. 81). Ending nomination filibusters can be thought of as another. As 11 states reminded us last November, constitutions can be amended. New laws can be enacted.

If any of this is undertaken, it should be done soberly. In an ideal world, it would be led by public figures of stature who are not involved in partisan politics.

The Schiavo case has precious little to do with the problem. In her case, all the judges applied the law as they found it. If it takes up DeLay's request to examine the actions of the federal courts in this case, the House Judiciary Committee should concentrate on whether changes are needed in the law, not the judges.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: anthonykennedy; courts; delay; federalcourts; filibuster; impeachment; judgegreer; judges; judiciary; reform; scotus; terrischiavo; tomdelay
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-95 next last

1 posted on 04/20/2005 4:02:59 PM PDT by CHARLITE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

B.S. up the wazoo alert. Go, DeLay!!


2 posted on 04/20/2005 4:05:44 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy ( Theresa Marie SCHINDLER - We will NEVER FORGET! - IMPEACH JUDGE GREER!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Sorry but the federal judges in the Terri Schiavo case ignored the law and wouldn't even give a dying woman the time of day. Of course the courts are out of the control. If they don't have to abide by the law, I don't see why we must respect their lawless rulings.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
3 posted on 04/20/2005 4:06:56 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
The judiciary has declared war on the American people and our Constitution, so its time to declare war on the judiciary. Whatever it takes to require and enforce a NON-POLITICAL judiciary that decides based exclusively on the rule of law.
4 posted on 04/20/2005 4:07:33 PM PDT by Jim 0216
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Ruth Bader should be impeached first and foremost.


5 posted on 04/20/2005 4:07:54 PM PDT by b4its2late (Being "over the hill" is much better than being under it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
There is currently no check on courts assuming powers not granted to them by constitutions. None, nada, zilch.

Congress doesn't have what it takes to impose a check on a runaway judicary while the courts have no problem at all slapping Congress around like a punching bag.

Delay at least, recognizes that and is willing to speak out on it. The rest of them are, well, wussies.

6 posted on 04/20/2005 4:08:40 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

If any of this is undertaken, it should be done soberly. In an ideal world, it would be led by public figures of stature who are not involved in partisan politics.

That would be Tom Delay.


7 posted on 04/20/2005 4:12:26 PM PDT by trustandobey (Delay 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

We have to start with the seed: the lawyers and local corruption.

There is an "institutionalized legal system' in every state-effectively a union of lawyers ("Officers of the Court") and judges..in which, more times than not, the "law" has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of a local civil case---but where the cases are decided by horse trading in Chambers.

Lawyers routinely sell out their clients best interest, succumbing to peer pressure and judicial pressure; i.e. a lawyer does not want to garner the reputation of being a maverick who steadfastly fights for right, justice and law, because, if so, s/he loses his/her standing in the union.

The end result, is that lawyer is going to have a tough time earning a living, where the judges and other attorneys are going to make it extremely unlikely that the maverick attorney ever wins a case. It's predominantly politics.

At this point, I think I speak the obvious....but for those who haven't been aware of this institutionalized legal system, they are becoming more aware now...resulting in the frustration of some victims of injustice that leads them to wrongfully engage violence.

The most telling aspect of this principle is where the Judiciary, even the Conservative 11th Circuit, united in lockstep when one of their brethren was challenged by Congress (Greer)- even where it was evident that Greer made clearly erroneous decisions AND even where the Legislature and Executive Branches ordered, by constitutional means via a Law, that the District Court perform a de novo review.

I saw in a piece of proposed legislation, that one element, was the establishment of an ombudsman, to whom those victimized by judicial tyranny could bring their grievances. This solution is a step in the right direction

However, the Office of the ombudsman would have to be "real".
In Ct, we have a grievance procedure for those misrepresented by their attorneys. Of course, it's a straw man. The ultimate arbiter of the grievance is a panel of lawyers designated by the Bar Association. So much for that.

In Ct, a maverick lawyer, a woman, sued 3 judges for corruption and collusion. Very brave, indeed. Not only did she lose the case, she was disbarred for 5 years- a disbarment upheld by the Ct. Supreme Court.

In Ct., we have a statute against Unfair Trade Practices conducted by businesses, professionals and commercial enterprises. You guessed it- the Ct Supreme Court ruled that it did not apply to attorneys.

This ombudsman, or a citizen's review committee, would be an effective solution to the tyranny of local judges and attorneys who see themselves as the "law"- the trick will be to get in past a Legislature consisting, in good measure, of attorneys.



8 posted on 04/20/2005 4:14:29 PM PDT by sirthomasthemore (I go to my execution as the King's humble servant, but God's first!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy

I'm on Chapter 2 of "Men in Black" - and it was CLEARLY the intention of the framers that the HIGH COURT NOT BE THE SOLE AUTHORITY OVER THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE.

I mean these judges are so far off the track. And "good behavior" should be regarded as NOT COMPLYING WITH THE CONSITUTION - which could eliminate most of the current judges we have - at least all those who have written laws from the bench.

People think "good behavior" should mean criminal activity - it doesn't - because they are already included under HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.


9 posted on 04/20/2005 4:22:22 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
The opposition to Delay has the same purpose as the opposition to Bush, Rumsfield, Rice et al:

Its purpose is to create enough public distraction so that the targets of their criticism, along with the supporters of those targets, have to spend so much time and effort focusing on responding to the personal criticisms with the result that they don't have adequate time to push forward their agenda.

An ancillary issue is: how much am I paying in taxes for the increased number of congressional staffers needed to do the research and prepare the responses to personal attacks, rather than information about the legislative agenda?

And when the public does begin to pay attention, their interest is in the scandal or potential scandal rather than what they should be paying attention to.

The press is complicit in that most all of their questions relate to the criticisms of the individuals, not the legislative agenda.

This is getting pathetic.

10 posted on 04/20/2005 4:44:57 PM PDT by Real Cynic No More (Al-Jazeera is to the Iraqi War as CBS was to the Vietnam War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

I see someone crying out for reform and I see people trying to silence him.


11 posted on 04/20/2005 5:26:23 PM PDT by virgil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

I see someone crying out for reform and I see people trying to silence him.


12 posted on 04/20/2005 5:26:28 PM PDT by virgil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE; Halls; Lesforlife; Calpernia; russesjunjee; wildandcrazyrussian; tutstar; ...

Ping if you can't stand judicial despots.


13 posted on 04/20/2005 7:09:11 PM PDT by floriduh voter (www.theempirejournal.com Demand the Impeachment of Judge Greer...No More!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
The Schiavo case has precious little to do with the problem. In her case, all the judges applied the law as they found it. If it takes up DeLay's request to examine the actions of the federal courts in this case, the House Judiciary Committee should concentrate on whether changes are needed in the law, not the judges.

FV SAYS: I disagree with the last paragraphs of this article. Judge Greer, Judge Baird and Judge Whittemore, the 2nd dca and the Fla Supremes all said NO to Terri. They didn't follow the law. They just followed along.

When judicial activism ENDS UP KILLING HUMAN BEINGS, it should be investigated.

14 posted on 04/20/2005 7:22:25 PM PDT by floriduh voter (www.theempirejournal.com Demand the Impeachment of Judge Greer...No More!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: floriduh voter

bump


15 posted on 04/20/2005 8:07:45 PM PDT by tutstar ( <{{--->< Impeach Judge Greer http://www.petitiononline.com/ijg520/petition.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: floriduh voter
Just for fun, lets start a list of all the Florida statutes that Greer either broke from the bench or allowed to be broken in order to make Terri dead.

Lets start with the one that says its illegal to cage a disabled person, withhold medical treatment from a disabled person, or withhold food and water from a disabled person in the state of Florida.

Do we even need to mention the ADA?

None of these low life judges even looked at Terri's case. They simply put their stamp of approval on Greer's hideous rulings and then tossed the papers back out the door.
16 posted on 04/20/2005 9:01:29 PM PDT by russesjunjee (Shake the fog from your eyes sheople! Our country is swirling down the sewer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: russesjunjee
The ADA passed a new law in 2004 about disabled Americans having access to the courtroom. GREER DENIED TERRI ACCESS TO HIS COURTROOM even though David Gibbs repeated over and voer that Terri could be wheeled into his courtroom and attending her own hearings.

I don't have this ADA law but I know they passed it. That's just one Federal Law that Greer broke as well as Whittemore by not allowing Terri to have a de novo hearing. Whittemore said "tube's not going back in."

The US must investigate Judge Greer, Judge Baird, Judge Whittemore and while we're at it, Judge Mark Shames who early on, did something awful in Terri's guardianship. (He retired and he's just a boomer. Guess he thinks he could duek out of this? LOL)

If the US investigates, Florida will have to clean house. There are nasty people in every agency that was supposed to protect Terri. If Jebbie begs the US to not investigate, someone will find out and he'll look even worse. The Fla GOP will really be finished in any event. Donation envelopes will say "impeach Greer" instead of enclosing donations.

17 posted on 04/21/2005 7:00:39 AM PDT by floriduh voter (www.theempirejournal.com Demand the Impeachment of Judge Greer...No More!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tutstar

17


18 posted on 04/21/2005 7:09:24 AM PDT by floriduh voter (www.theempirejournal.com Demand the Impeachment of Judge Greer...No More!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; MeekOneGOP; EternalVigilance; Sun; Future Useless Eater; ...
Special ACTION Alert:

CAPITAL SWITCHBOARD TOLL FREE: 1-866-808-0065 (last wk).

You are encouraged to call your Senator today. Please ask them to back the "Constitutional Option." The Capitol switchboard number is (202) 224-3121.

The Constitutional Option is a simple procedure designed to stop the obstruction of President Bush's judicial nominees and allow them to finally get up-or-down votes by the full Senate.

Stand with us as we Confront the Judicial War on Faith.

http://www.StopActivistJudges.org

FV SAYS: This advocacy group has many coalitions within it. They are really fit to be tied re: what the judicial system did to Terri. In addition, they are FED UP WITH THE NOMINEE FILIBUSTERING BY THE DEMS.

PLEASE PING YOUR LISTS. This group has lots of Texans in it.

19 posted on 04/21/2005 8:10:54 AM PDT by floriduh voter (www.theempirejournal.com Demand the Impeachment of Judge Greer...No More!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: russesjunjee
Special ACTION Alert:

CAPITAL SWITCHBOARD TOLL FREE: 1-866-808-0065 (last wk).

You are encouraged to call your Senator today. Please ask them to back the "Constitutional Option." The Capitol switchboard number is (202) 224-3121.

The Constitutional Option is a simple procedure designed to stop the obstruction of President Bush's judicial nominees and allow them to finally get up-or-down votes by the full Senate.

Stand with us as we Confront the Judicial War on Faith.

http://www.StopActivistJudges.org

FV SAYS: This advocacy group has many coalitions within it. They are really fit to be tied re: what the judicial system did to Terri. In addition, they are FED UP WITH THE NOMINEE FILIBUSTERING BY THE DEMS. YOu can sign up for their newsletter. They are new and need joiners.

20 posted on 04/21/2005 8:19:50 AM PDT by floriduh voter (www.theempirejournal.com Demand the Impeachment of Judge Greer...No More!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: floriduh voter; CHARLITE
Here's an in your face pic for the Liberal
lyin' jerks trying to smear Delay!


21 posted on 04/21/2005 8:28:14 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: floriduh voter; CHARLITE; phenn; FreepinforTerri; kimmie7; Pegita; windchime; tutstar; ...

Terri ping! If anyone would like to be added to or removed from my Terri ping list, please let me know by FReepmail!


22 posted on 04/21/2005 8:36:09 AM PDT by Ohioan from Florida (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.- Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; russesjunjee
JUST SOME OF THE FLORIDA LAWS THAT JUDGE GREER AND JUDGE BAIRD VIOLATED AND FOR THAT MATTER, JUDGE WHITTEMORE ALSO VIOLATED THEM because he refused to get the feeding tube back in. That's two counts of murder right there and Judge Baird = manslaughter for not giving Jeb Bush due process. Jeb Bush sat on his hands and his punishment will be a lifetime of regret that he could have rescued her.

765.309 Florida Statute: Mercy Killing of Euthanasia Not Authorized; Suicide Distinguished. -- (1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act of omission to end the life other than to permit the natural process of dying. (2) The withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures from a patient in accordance with any provision of this chapter does not, for any purpose, constitute a suicide.

458.326 Florida Statute: Intractable Pain; Authorized Treatment. -- (4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, and no treatment authorized by this section may be used for such purpose.

782.08 Florida Statute: Assisting Self-Murder. -- Every person deliberately assisting another in the commission of self-murder shall be guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s.775.082, s. 775.083 or s.775.084.

23 posted on 04/21/2005 9:57:31 AM PDT by floriduh voter (www.theempirejournal.com Demand the Impeachment of Judge Greer...No More!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: floriduh voter
JUST SOME OF THE FLORIDA LAWS THAT JUDGE GREER AND JUDGE BAIRD VIOLATED

I don't think you can get Greer on that cite from statute 765. Here is the section you cited:

765.309 Florida Statute: Mercy Killing of Euthanasia Not Authorized; Suicide Distinguished. -- (1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act of omission to end the life other than to permit the natural process of dying. (2) The withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures from a patient in accordance with any provision of this chapter does not, for any purpose, constitute a suicide.

Now, let's look just above that section:

765.305 Procedure in absence of a living will.--

(1) In the absence of a living will, the decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures from a patient may be made by a health care surrogate designated by the patient pursuant to part II unless the designation limits the surrogate's authority to consent to the withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures.

(2) Before exercising the incompetent patient's right to forego treatment, the surrogate must be satisfied that:

(a) The patient does not have a reasonable medical probability of recovering capacity so that the right could be exercised by the patient.

(b) The patient has an end-stage condition, the patient is in a persistent vegetative state, or the patient's physical condition is terminal.

So from the same bill, there is language that would allow such action as was taken against Terri (this is NOT meant as condoning what happened to Terri - it is instead a critique of the claims your post is making).

Without some very extensive research, it is difficult to tell how much Greer was breaking the law. Lifting a qualifying paragraph out of a much larger statute doesn't provide much guideance.

If Greer was making his own law, he should be impeached. If he was acting within the law, then the law needs to be changed. But that determination needs to happen with a careful examination of all relevant statutes, and needs to happen within the government of the state of Florida and not by the feds, IMO.

24 posted on 04/21/2005 12:23:05 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drooling moron since 1998...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"There is currently no check on courts assuming powers not granted to them by constitutions. None, nada, zilch."

Sure there are:
1. Constitutional amendments although unlikely, can be used to correct judicial overreaching. Dred Scott and the 14th Am. for example
2. Congress can impeach federal judges
3. Under Article III congress can remove matters from federal court jurisdiction so that state law would apply. So if for example enough of Congress didn't agree with the Supreme Courts view of abortion, that can Congress can make it so federal courts cannot review abortion cases

Also Federal Judges are nominated and approved by the political branches. So if you don't like the type of justices that are getting nominated, don't vote for Presidentthat nominated them or the Senator that approved them. Thats how our system works.

Never forget that it was Eisenhower (not Johnson) that appointed Earl Warren And Reagan (not Clinton) that appointed Anthony Kennedy
25 posted on 04/21/2005 12:46:59 PM PDT by llortami
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: llortami
And Reagan also appointed Sandra Day O'Connor. And Bush I appointed Souter.

Sometimes I think there should be a constitutional amendment limiting judgeships to 12-16 years - they seem to lose their perspective when they sit on that bench for too long.

26 posted on 04/21/2005 12:52:15 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drooling moron since 1998...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

"Sometimes I think there should be a constitutional amendment limiting judgeships to 12-16 years - they seem to lose their perspective when they sit on that bench for too long"

That actually sounds like a good idea to me, and would help alievate alot of the concern about unchecked justices.

Although it would require a Contitutional ammendment implement.


27 posted on 04/21/2005 12:58:52 PM PDT by llortami
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Terri wanted to live. She said so as best she could before she started crying out of fright, right before they yanked out here feeding tube. That makes everything that you copied and pasted MOOT.


28 posted on 04/21/2005 1:33:28 PM PDT by floriduh voter (www.theempirejournal.com Demand the Impeachment of Judge Greer...No More!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: floriduh voter
Terri wanted to live. She said so as best she could before she started crying out of fright, right before they yanked out here feeding tube. That makes everything that you copied and pasted MOOT.

If you're going to make a legal argument against Greer, you're gonna need more ammo than that. And, once again, I vehemently disagree with what happened to Terri. But if it is going to be prevented from happening again, we need an accurate assessment of what went wrong, instead of a few snippets from the Florida Statutes that were clarifications and not prohibitions or hard law.

29 posted on 04/21/2005 1:36:57 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drooling moron since 1998...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

I'm not attempting to try Judge Greer's impeachment here on Free Republic. It's not up to me to pull the facts together. I'll let the feds do it. They act like they money to burn.


30 posted on 04/21/2005 2:33:33 PM PDT by floriduh voter (www.theempirejournal.com Demand the Impeachment of Judge Greer...No More!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: floriduh voter; IleeneWright; Zivasmate; supercat; Leatherneck_MT; FairOpinion; tomahawk; ...

Special ACTION Alert:
CAPITAL SWITCHBOARD TOLL FREE: 1-866-808-0065 (last wk).
You are encouraged to call your Senator today. Please ask them to back the "Constitutional Option." The Capitol switchboard number is (202) 224-3121.
The Constitutional Option is a simple procedure designed to stop the obstruction of President Bush's judicial nominees and allow them to finally get up-or-down votes by the full Senate.
Stand with us as we Confront the Judicial War on Faith.
http://www.StopActivistJudges.org
FV SAYS: This advocacy group has many coalitions within it. They are really fit to be tied re: what the judicial system did to Terri. In addition, they are FED UP WITH THE NOMINEE FILIBUSTERING BY THE DEMS.
PLEASE PING YOUR LISTS. This group has lots of Texans in it.


31 posted on 04/21/2005 6:29:51 PM PDT by Sun (Visit www.theEmpireJournal.com * Pray for Terri. Pray to end abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

"but a politician under siege for alleged ethics violations "

Screw you Durst! I expected more from the Herald.


32 posted on 04/21/2005 6:57:56 PM PDT by international american (Tagline now flameproof....purchased from "Conspiracy Guy Custom Taglines"LLC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
designated by the patient pursuant to part II unless the designation limits the surrogate's authority to consent to the withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures.

There was no surrogate. Terri did not have a living will(advance directive) so she could not have designated a surrogate. The proxy can make the decision only if there is clear and convincing evidence that would have been the wish of the incapacitated person.

33 posted on 04/21/2005 7:09:50 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Using the trend of laws in other countries to justify it strikes us as unreasonable indeed.

I had to rub my eyes. This is from a Boston newspaper!?

34 posted on 04/21/2005 7:10:49 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

The liberal Dems who love to play the race card are fighting against Janice Roberts Brown, a share cropper's daughter. Can you imagine what the liberal Dems and the liberal news media would do with that if Republicans fought against a black judicial nominee?


35 posted on 04/21/2005 7:56:06 PM PDT by Sun (Visit www.theEmpireJournal.com * Pray for Terri. Pray to end abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
"The proxy can make the decision only if there is clear and convincing evidence that would have been the wish of the incapacitated person."

And Michael finessed that problem with ample collusion from Felos and Greer, by trotting in his brother and sister-in-law over 7 years after her "accident," and those closest to him made the sworn statements about Terri having said that she "didn't want to live that way."

I can accept that she could have said such a thing, but at the time, she was 21 years old and commenting on the condition of her aged grandmother who was "hooked up to tubes" (life support in reality, which Terri never needed).

36 posted on 04/21/2005 8:26:34 PM PDT by CHARLITE (I lost my car keys............so now I have to walk everywhere.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Sun

Thanks for the ping!


37 posted on 04/21/2005 8:50:59 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

You are welcome.


38 posted on 04/21/2005 8:58:21 PM PDT by Sun (Visit www.theEmpireJournal.com * Pray for Terri. Pray to end abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: All

Tell your U.S. senators to vote to end filibusters for judicial nominees. If the main number is constantly busy,
you can find your own senators' phone numbers by clicking here:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Also, please sign this petition.

https://www.aclj.org/Petition/


39 posted on 04/21/2005 9:01:41 PM PDT by Sun (Visit www.theEmpireJournal.com * Pray for Terri. Pray to end abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sun

I will contact my Senators tomorrow. Seems like we are getting down to crunch time so it's a good time to let them know that they have our support on the rules change.

A lot of us Texans are proud to have Tom Delay saying what needs to be said right now. I have already called his DC office and let them know that he has my full support. Think I'll send him an email tomorrow and let him know that he STILL has my full support.

The democrats may want to drag this country down to hell with them, but I ain't going to let it go without a fight. No way.

Thanks for the ping Sun.


40 posted on 04/21/2005 9:27:59 PM PDT by planekT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: planekT

You can be proud to be from Texas.

Feel sorry for me. I have Clinton and Schumer.


41 posted on 04/21/2005 9:54:10 PM PDT by Sun (Visit www.theEmpireJournal.com * Pray for Terri. Pray to end abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sun

We just need more people like yourself in New York.


42 posted on 04/21/2005 10:09:39 PM PDT by planekT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
And Michael finessed that problem with ample collusion from Felos and Greer, by trotting in his brother and sister-in-law over 7 years after her "accident," and those closest to him made the sworn statements about Terri having said that she "didn't want to live that way."

But there is another problem. Hearsay evidence is inadmissable except where explicitly permitted by law. The exception to the law was never disclosed, and the only exception for the admissability of hearsay evidence concerned with medical treatment was for symptoms and the like.

43 posted on 04/21/2005 10:31:53 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC; All

The info below, is from the Guardian Ad Litem Richard L. Pearce, appointed by Judge Greer when, MS petitioned the court to have Terri's feeding tube removed in 1998.

Upon turning over his findings to Judge Greer, MS/MS's attorney demanded that Richard Pearce be removed as Terri's Guardian, alleging "BIAS"! Judge Greer agreed.

Read the excepts below, which are DIRECTLY from the actual report and find out WHY this Guardian ad Litem was removed. Hint: MS was unable to prove clear & convincing evidence.

MS "family" had not come forward with their alleged 1st hand info as to Terri's DEATH WISH, as MS & his death attorney has lead everyone to believe. Richard Pearce did NOT recommend that the feeding tube be removed.

Richard Pearce also stated as required by DUE PROCESS, that Terri needed a consistent Guardian ad Litem, which we all know she never received!

6. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
The pending application by the ward’s husband for withdrawal of the of the Ward’s feeding tube which would inevitably result in the ward’s death creates at least the appearance of, if not Actual, conflicts of interest involving both the ward’s husband and her parents.

All parties to this proceeding acknowledge that the Ward has no will so that, upon her death, her entire estate will pass to her intestate heir (s). Thus, if the Ward dies while married to Mr. Schiavo, he inherits the entire guardianship estate.

On the other hand, if the marriage between the ward and her husband is dissolved the ward’s parents become her intestate heirs and they for the survivor of them) will inherit the Ward’s estate upon her death. Thus, the Mr. Schiavo will realize substantial and fairly immediate financial gain if his application for withdrawal of life support is granted.

On the other hand Mr. Schiavo’s petition for withdrawal of life support is denied, it may be anticipated that he would seek to dissolve his marriage to the Ward, in which case the Ward’s parents become her sole heirs-at-law.

Of course, given the potential that the ward may have a normal life expectancy, there is no way to qualify the projected potential financial gain to the Ward’s parents upon her eventual death because there is no reliable way of predicting how much of her estate will be left.


8. GUARDIAN AT LITEM’S OPINION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
The principal issue presented in this case is whether the ward, if capable, would direct the removal of her feeding tube given her present circumstances.

There is no written advance directive of the ward in this case. Based on Browning. There is no presumption that evidence of oral statements of the ward are clear and convincing; that burden remains with the Petitioner.

The only direct evidence probative of the issue of the ward’s intent is the hearsay testimony of her husband, Mr. SCHIAVO, who seeks withdrawal of the ward’s feeding rube which would inevitably result in her death. However, his credibility is necessarily adversely affected by the obvious financial benefit to him of being the ward’s sole heir at law in the event of her death while still married to him. Her death also permits him to get on with his own life.

In the opinion of the undersigned guardian ad litem, Mr. SCHIAVO’S credibility is also effected by the chronology of the case. For the first four years (approximately) following the ward’s accident, he aggressively pursued every manner of treatment and rehabilitation conceivable. As well as lawsuits to compensate the ward for her injuries in connection with which he presumably argued that she could require substantial funds for future care and treatment.

At or around the time the litigation was finally concluded, he has a change of heart concerning further treatment which lead, according to the ward’s parents, to his falling out with them. From that point forward, the ward’s husband has isolated the ward from her parents, has on at least one occasion refused consent for the ward to be treated for an infection, and, ultimately, four years later, has filed the instant petition for the withdrawal of life support on the basis of evidence apparently known only to him which could have been asserted at any time during the ward’s illness.

Since there is no corroborative evidence of the ward’s intentions, and since the only witness claiming to have such evidence is the one person who will realize a direct and substantial financial benefit from the ward’s death, the undersigned guardian ad litem is of the opinion that the evidence of the ward’s intentions developed by the guardian ad litem’s investigation does not meet the clear and convincing standard. Based on Migliore v. Migliore, 717 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) , the credibility of the witness is a factor to be considered in determining whether evidence is clear and convincing.

Given the inherent evidentiary problems already mentioned, together with the fact that the ward has been maintained on the life support measures sought to be withdrawn for the past 8 years, it is the recommendation of the guardian ad litem that the petition for removal be denied.

In fairness to the petitioner, should this court disagree with the foregoing analysis of the evidence and find it to clearly and convincingly reflect the actual wishes and intentions of the ward, the guardian ad litem believes that Browning controls and, in that case, the feeding tube should be withdrawn. The undersigned guardian ad litem further asserts and recommends that due process requires that the ward’s interests continue to be represented in all further proceedings herein, whether by the undersigned guardian ad litem or other appropriate fiduciary.









There is no written advance directive of the ward in this case. Based on Browning. There is no presumption that evidence of oral statements of the ward are clear and convincing; that burden remains with the Petitioner.









44 posted on 04/22/2005 2:59:55 AM PDT by IleeneWright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Real Cynic No More


6. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
The pending application by the ward’s husband for withdrawal of the of the Ward’s feeding tube which would inevitably result in the ward’s death creates at least the appearance of, if not Actual, conflicts of interest involving both the ward’s husband and her parents.

All parties to this proceeding acknowledge that the Ward has no will so that, upon her death, her entire estate will pass to her intestate heir (s). Thus, if the Ward dies while married to Mr. Schiavo, he inherits the entire guardianship estate. On the other hand, if the marriage between the ward and her husband is dissolved the ward’s parents become her intestate heirs and they for the survivor of them) will inherit the Ward’s estate upon her death. Thus, the Mr. Schiavo will realize substantial and fairly immediate financial gain if his application for withdrawal of life support is granted. On the other hand Mr. Schiavo’s petition for withdrawal of life support is denied, it may be anticipated that he would seek to dissolve his marriage to the Ward, in which case the Ward’s parents become her sole heirs-at-law. Of course, given the potential that the ward may have a normal life expectancy, there is no way to qualify the projected potential financial gain to the Ward’s parents upon her eventual death because there is no reliable way of predicting how much of her estate will be left.


8. GUARDIAN AT LITEM’S OPINION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
The principal issue presented in this case is whether the ward, if capable, would direct the removal of her feeding tube given her present circumstances.

There is no written advance directive of the ward in this case. Based on Browning. There is no presumption that evidence of oral statements of the ward are clear and convincing; that burden remains with the Petitioner.

The only direct evidence probative of the issue of the ward’s intent is the hearsay testimony of her husband, Mr. SCHIAVO, who seeks withdrawal of the ward’s feeding rube which would inevitably result in her death. However, his credibility is necessarily adversely affected by the obvious financial benefit to him of being the ward’s sole heir at law in the event of her death while still married to him. Her death also permits him to get on with his own life.

In the opinion of the undersigned guardian ad litem, Mr. SCHIAVO’S credibility is also effected by the chronology of the case. For the first four years (approximately) following the ward’s accident, he aggressively pursued every manner of treatment and rehabilitation conceivable. As well as lawsuits to compensate the ward for her injuries in connection with which he presumably argued that she could require substantial funds for future care and treatment.

At or around the time the litigation was finally concluded, he has a change of heart concerning further treatment which lead, according to the ward’s parents, to his falling out with them. From that point forward, the ward’s husband has isolated the ward from her parents, has on at least one occasion refused consent for the ward to be treated for an infection, and, ultimately, four years later, has filed the instant petition for the withdrawal of life support on the basis of evidence apparently known only to him which could have been asserted at any time during the ward’s illness.

Since there is no corroborative evidence of the ward’s intentions, and since the only witness claiming to have such evidence is the one person who will realize a direct and substantial financial benefit from the ward’s death, the undersigned guardian ad litem is of the opinion that the evidence of the ward’s intentions developed by the guardian ad litem’s investigation does not meet the clear and convincing standard. Based on Migliore v. Migliore, 717 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) , the credibility of the witness is a factor to be considered in determining whether evidence is clear and convincing.

Given the inherent evidentiary problems already mentioned, together with the fact that the ward has been maintained on the life support measures sought to be withdrawn for the past 8 years, it is the recommendation of the guardian ad litem that the petition for removal be denied.

In fairness to the petitioner, should this court disagree with the foregoing analysis of the evidence and find it to clearly and convincingly reflect the actual wishes and intentions of the ward, the guardian ad litem believes that Browning controls and, in that case, the feeding tube should be withdrawn. The undersigned guardian ad litem further asserts and recommends that due process requires that the ward’s interests continue to be represented in all further proceedings herein, whether by the undersigned guardian ad litem or other appropriate fiduciary.









There is no written advance directive of the ward in this case. Based on Browning. There is no presumption that evidence of oral statements of the ward are clear and convincing; that burden remains with the Petitioner.


B-I-N-G-O!!!!!!!


45 posted on 04/22/2005 3:01:37 AM PDT by IleeneWright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Real Cynic No More

Real Cynic No More,

Sorry about that! I thought I had copy/paste your comment regarding delay being ambushed with a personal attack, in order to silence him.


46 posted on 04/22/2005 3:05:38 AM PDT by IleeneWright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Sun

BTTT!!!!!!


47 posted on 04/22/2005 3:08:07 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy; All

The Schiavo case has precious little to do with the problem. In her case, all the judges applied the law as they found it. If it takes up DeLay's request to examine the actions of the federal courts in this case, the House Judiciary Committee should concentrate on whether changes are needed in the law, not the judges.



And this conclusion is based on??????????????????????????

The FACT, that Terri never received proper due process, as a result of inconsistent representation perhaps?

Although the Court apponted GAL didn't find clear & convincing and DID NOT recommend the feeding tube be removed perhaps?

The Court apponted GAL, found CONFLICT OF INTEREST associated with MS as Terri's guardian maybe?

Apparently they think everyone is blind and perhaps they think, that those of us who have made it clear that WE ARE NOT BLIND, will just GIVE UP after awhile?

BS ALERT.....is an UNDERSTATEMENT!


48 posted on 04/22/2005 3:13:34 AM PDT by IleeneWright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida

I would like to be added! THANK YOU!


49 posted on 04/22/2005 3:15:50 AM PDT by IleeneWright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sun

Yes SUN. thanks for the ping! Any news on the ultra sound BS? Baby C, Mae and Clara? :)


50 posted on 04/22/2005 3:18:56 AM PDT by IleeneWright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-95 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson