Posted on 05/09/2005 5:36:58 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Sounds about right I'd say.
But the plaintiffs didn't ask for that. They wanted to rehash their appellate claims that had been turned down repeatedly in state court.
The courts rule on what is before them, or at least they should.
Can't prove it from where Terri's buried.
But the plaintiffs didn't ask for that
I think it took them until the second time around, but they got around to asking for it. And IIRC, even on the first go-round, there was a dissenting opinon (that the case was not being handled per the people's intent, as expressed in legislation) at the Circuit Court.
The general points I was making with my previous post were that Farah's article had no analysis, and your assertion that the Republican judges FOLLOWED the law is subject to well-reasoned disagreement. See judge's dissenting opinion.
I guess the situation is just a lot simpler in my view. When you strip it down to the essentials, what Greer had to decide was:
Is it right or wrong to withhold water and food from a person who cannot voice objection?
"Evidence" is not necessary to answer such a question.
Actually, I don't think she is buried at all. She was cremated following her murder and apparently the scumbag "husband" won't tell Terri's parents where the ashes are.
It still staggers my mind that the (presumably corrupt) Clinton appointment was the only judge with any sense of right and wrong. The world is turned upside down.
A lot of liberal Democrats have been masquerading as Republicans in order to get themselves elected.
I'm less convinced that the federal courts didn't do what they had to do given the facts and the pleadings. They certainly weren't given anything in the first round of filings and, realistically, it was probably too late from a clinical standpoint for Terry when they were given a second chance to intervene.
Even then, it's arguable at best. The Schindlers' lawyers simply never made the best arguments and it was apparent to many of us here at the time.
Take the emotional aspects of Terri's case and put them aside for a moment. These life and death matters rightly belong to the states. We allow states to decide whether or not to have a death penalty. If Roe v. Wade is reversed, it will return the options regarding abortion to the states for them to decide.
Just like probate law belongs to the states, so should these decisions. The states are the testing grounds for different approaches to legal matters, and having 50 of them trying out different things ultimately leads to better decisions which are later adopted by all.
Florida screwed this one up. The answer isn't a federal law, hastily written in a couple of days. It's for other states to observe the process and come up with alternative solutions.
You've been given the links several times. I can't find them now, but hopefully someone will provide the links again. I don't imagine you'll read them, but the lurkers are probably interested.
Pinging a couple people who might have the links.
"Evidence" is not necessary to answer such a question.
Yes, it is. Florida law, like most other states, not only permits but directs health care facilities to withhold food and water from patients who have indicated a desire for that to happen under those circumstances.
It might surprise you, but I volunteered to help employees of a local Catholic hospital fill out their Advanced Directives (living wills) last week, and out of the 50 or so that I did, only one expressed the desire to remain alive in a situation similar to Terri's.
That really surprised me at a Catholic hospital.
In any event, Judge Greer did have to make that determination, and it required evidence. Whatever that evidence might have been.
And where might that be? I know, silly question. Even her family doesn't know the answer to that one.
I didn't see much difference between Republicans and Democrats in all of this. Even Sheila Jackson-Lee supported Terri's right to live, until it came time to vote. She blended right in with a lot of Republicans.
While it's not on point, Federal law guarantees a death row convict the right of Federal appeal, even though the underlying case is tried according to state law.
Civil procedure is also largely a creation of Congress, adapted by the various states, Louisiana excepted, of course.
Anyway, thanks for the small concession that the question of whether or not the federal judges followed the law is "arguable at best." Whether or not the Federal courts followed the law is not a slam dunk, either "yes" or "no."
Florida screwed this one up. The answer isn't a federal law, hastily written in a couple of days.
It's foolish to count on Congress to get anything right ;-) But it may be that federal oversight is appropriate, in some cases of withholding food and water with the objective of shortening life. Especially where an error below results in NOT following the patient's wishes and killing them AGAINST their wishes. That's the intent of federal oversight in capital cases, to provide a safeguard just in case the state court blew it. The stakes are the same, life and death. It's a minor check on state power and on an individual's right to self-determination, without outright denial of either.
Not to my knowledge. Alzheimer's is always a concern, but I did have enough interest in this case to have looked at the trial testimony if I'd seen a link.
It's more than likely that I could have missed a post directed toward me during the ordeal. The posts were flying fast and furious.
RINO galore.
Time to kick these traitors out of office.
These RINO, better known as neoconservatives, are responsible for turning our country into another banana republic with their treasonous immigration policies.
We need to elect real Reagan Republicans, ie Paleoconservatives.
FWIW, the dissenting judge noted, in the opinion published on March 23, that his opinion of "preservation of status quo" as envisioned by Congress required the resumption of feeding. Even if the matter wasn't framed for a de novo review of the facts; following legislative intent as intepreted by the dissenting judge was probably not too late from a medical clinical point.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32305opn11.pdf <-
I'm really not interested in rehashing the case at this point. It'll be rehashed by better scholars than me, and I'm content to wait for them to finish their analyses. Like I said, my general point is that just about every aspect of this case is arguable. Except on FR ;-)
Bingo!
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.