Posted on 05/02/2005 5:06:09 AM PDT by Quaker
The crafty, politician Greer changed Terri's age back to 12 so that he could say that she was only a child so her words didn't hold any weight. GREER TAMPERED WITH WITNESS TESTIMONY. People just don't get it. He's crafty which doesn't mean he's a fair judge. HE'S CORRUPT AND EVIL. A guardianship judge should be compassionate, not be killing people.
Greer can't even see. He refused to ever meet Terri and she was denied her rights under the ADA to have access to any courtroom. Terri was denied her basic rights. Greer can't dot anything. He ruled in Michael Schiavo's favor and whatever their proposed ORDER looked like, Greer would sign it. HE IS A ROGUE JUDGE. Sorry, but he didn't used to be but he changed into one. If you knew who Greer knew, you would say "aha" right about now.
Why are you on this thread? Why don't you move on?
If you posters are afraid of the truth, you are in denial that the Republican Party needs major rehabilitation.
Keep keeping us posted, FReeper pal.
I'll keep you posted. They can't handle the truth.
Is that all you can come up with is to tell me to go away??
You don't have an answer or even a direction do you?
4 year old jumping up and down.
Have a nice day. I'll take your advice. Ciao.
"He refused to ever meet Terri and she was denied her rights under the ADA to have access to any courtroom. Terri was denied her basic rights."
I believe you. But he covered his butt well enough to get rubber-stamped by fellow judges numerous times and now to win the acclaim of all these lawyers. How did he manage that? Because the mainstream mindset in our country now is that it's OK to starve and dehydrate someone to death if a) a judge can be persuaded she "wouldn't want to live like that" or b) the arbitrary PVS designation renders her nonhuman, "already dead."
To my mind, the fact that this has become the mainstream mindset is much, much more frightening than any rogue judge on a rampage.
Picture the scene at the Law Day Banquet where Greer gets his award. The ambulance chasers will be applauding that Terri was killed.
See my last post. Greer is merely a symptom of the disease but it was deadly for Terri.
I'm trying to micro some dinner and sorry my answer wasn't satisfactory to you.
I know a slap in the face when I feel it...
Now ain't that special...
Amazing how Orwellian their terminology is. Can't help but comment on it.
I'll gladly answer your question if you want me to.
What answer?? Those look like questions to me.
Enjoy the micro. :-) I got the grill and two fat steaks.
Yeah, please do.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1382797/posts
He's always been a politician. He's never really been a judge. Like the W. Pasco Assn. said "lifetime achievement for acting."
You can't even spell her name right.
Schiavo Thoughts: Feeding Tubes
Before I post about this morning's ruling from the Eleventh Circuit, which you can read here, I'm going to offer some thoughts on an issue that has been the subject of countless emails I've received: feeding tubes.
Some people believe that feeding tubes are different from ventilators and other machines that keep us breathing, or machines that make our hearts beat. Some people just seem uncomfortable that removing those other devices leads to an expeditious death, whereas removing or declining to insert a feeding tube -- when a patient cannot otherwise ingest food and water -- leads to a slow death. Some assume that death is painful.
I don't want to comment on the morality surrounding feeding tubes and their use or nonuse. This is a legal blog, so I'm going to offer a few legal observations in this area.
First, a Florida law enacted in 1999 makes it clear that the "life-prolonging procedures" a person may refuse include "artifically provided sustenance and hydration." This point is made on the Info Page I created to help explain the law at issue here.
But numerous people have pointed out that this law was passed by the Florida Legislature and signed by Governor Bush only in 1999 -- years after Terri's collapse and even longer after Terri made whatever statements she made about such things. They contend that this 1999 law shouldn't apply to Terri.
Let's take a step back. Statutes are one form of law in Florida, but there is another form of law that's higher: the Florida Constitution. In 1980, Florida's citizens amended Florida's constitution to add a right of privacy to Floridians' fundamental rights. The Florida Supreme Court addressed this right in the 1990 case In re Browning. Florida's high court determined that the constitutional right of privacy includes the right to decline any medical treatment, including the use of a feeding tube. The court said:
Recognizing that one has the inherent right to make choices about medical treatment, we necessarily conclude that this right encompasses all medical choices. A competent individual has the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment regardless of his or her medical condition. The issue involves a patient's right of self-determination and does not involve what is thought to be in the patient's best interests.
* * *
We see no reason to qualify that right on the basis of the denomination of a medical procedure as major or minor, ordinary or extraordinary, life-prolonging, life-maintaining, life-sustaining, or otherwise.
* * *
Courts overwhelmingly have held that a person may refuse or remove artificial life-support, whether supplying oxygen by a mechanical respirator or supplying food and water through a feeding tube. We agree and find no significant legal distinction between these artificial means of life-support.
(emphasis added) (citations omitted).
So, as explained by the Florida Supreme Court in 1990, the right to decline medical treatment -- including use of a feeding tube -- has been the law of Florida since no later than 1980. Under the Florida Constitution, feeding tubes are medical treatment that may be refused. What the statutes say on this point cannot overcome the rights conferred by the Constitution.
As many know, the federal constitution does not have an express right of privacy, but the federal courts have found many privacy-like interests to be liberty and due process interests protected by the federal constitution. When the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cruzan v. Missouri in 1990, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor authored a concurring opinion discussing Nancy Cruzan's federal right to decline use of a feeding tube. Justice O'Connor explained:
Artificial feeding cannot readily be distinguished from other forms of medical treatment. Whether or not the techniques used to pass food and water into the patient's alimentary tract are termed "medical treatment," it is clear they all involve some degree of intrusion and restraint. Feeding a patient by means of a nasogastric tube requires a physician to pass a long flexible tube through the patient's nose, throat and esophagus and into the stomach. Because of the discomfort such a tube causes, "[m]any patients need to be restrained forcibly, and their hands put into large mittens to prevent them from removing the tube." A gastrostomy tube (as was used to provide food and water to Nancy Cruzan) or jejunostomy tube must be surgically implanted into the stomach or small intestine. Requiring a competent adult to endure such procedures against her will burdens the patient's liberty, dignity, and freedom to determine the course of her own treatment. Accordingly, the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause must protect, if it protects anything, an individual's deeply personal decision to reject medical treatment, including the artificial delivery of food and water.
(emphasis added).
I hope this helps clear up what the law is in this area.
...posted by Matt Conigliaro http://abstractappeal.com/archives/2005_03_01_abstractappeal_archive.html#111158613257156180
I want an acknowledgement from the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government that EVERY person, in or out of the womb, til natural death, is endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to live, and that our Constitution is predicated on that guarantee.
I want every judge who ignores the clear protections of our constitutions to be thrown from office poste haste and in disgrace.
I want every judge who makes law from the bench to be met with swift and active opposition from the Legislative and the Executive branches.
I want the Congress to use their constitutionally-invested power to rein in rogue judges.
I want an Executive who doesn't believe in Judicial Supremecy, and who will actively fight those who do.
I don't want to see the likes of Felos and Greer starving people to death because they think they have god-like powers to determine whether someone's 'quality of life' is what it should be.
I don't want to see GOP party hacks and lawyers slicing and dicing pro-lifers because they have the temerity to speak out against gross injustice.
Terry Shiavo isn't coming back. Now what?
While we would rather have had a live Terri than a dead martyr, now that she is gone she is the symbol of our fight for LIFE in America; whether you or me or anyone else likes it or not. Many politicians are going to wish they never heard her name, if they don't already.
The political 'geniuses' that are running this show have no clue how deeply what happened to Terri has impacted people across this land.
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.