1. No one, on this thread, is advocating euthanasia. The question before the Florida Court was not that.
2. Can the silly ad hominem argument. I do not know what George Felos' personal philosophy is, and could not care less. A trial lawyer represents a client--at least he is supposed to--and many times we get our best results for clients for whom we have the least personal sympathy. It really is not relevant to the soundness or unsoundness of the result, whether a lawyer is someone you like or dislike.
3. The major thing that the Nazis did was to trash the rule of Law; to make Judges dependent upon the Hitlerian Will alone. Thus they were able to trash the rights of the traditional German States, and consolidate power in Berlin.
4. Besides that the Nazis did many things. For example, they built super highways. Those were later used to facilitate the killing machine that they launched against their neighbors, but that did not make super highways evil.
History shows us that at the Nuremberg trials the German judges invoked as a facet of their defense the concept that they were legally bound to enforce the laws of the Reich. They argued that the Tribunal could not find them guilty of crimes against humanity because everything they did fell within the legal framework established by the legally elected/appointed authorities of the German government.
Where they failed was that they attempted to use the law to justify their actions, i.e., endow morality through legality. This failed. Because clearly their actions were immoral and unjust, and attempting to cleanse the immorality of their acts by appeals to legality carried no weight with the tribunal. And rightly so. The German judges did not trash the rule of law, they embraced a flawed legal system. They trashed something more important than the law, they trashed justice, and moral absolutes.
You can put lipstick on a pig and call it Marilyn Monroe, but it's still a pig.
Referencing what happened in Germany...a process that began almost identically to what we see going on with the euthanasia movement in America today...is hardly 'ad hominem'. And it certainly isn't 'silly'.
I do not know what George Felos' personal philosophy is, and could not care less.
Perhaps you should care. Then perhaps you might undertake to become informed before you write long essays on such an important subject as this.
A trial lawyer represents a client--at least he is supposed to--and many times we get our best results for clients for whom we have the least personal sympathy. It really is not relevant to the soundness or unsoundness of the result, whether a lawyer is someone you like or dislike.
A paragraph that underlines very well one of the main problems with American lawyers and jurisprudence today.
The Germans didn't have a Bill of Rights. We do. And it is Judges who are ignoring its provisions.
Non-sequiter. Are you comparing the act of killing disabled folks with building highways? Doesn't make any sense...