Republicans show how out of the mainstream they are

[DaShiznit]

Polls on Terri Schiavo Case (http://pollingreport.com/news.htm)

"As you may know, a woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her parents and her husband disagree on whether or not she should be kept on life support. In cases like this who do you think should have final say, the parents or the spouse?" Options rotated

Parents 25% Spouse 65% Other 4% Unsure 6%
Bear in mind that the bill to bring Schiavo's case to a federal court, giving her a better chance at having her feeding tube re-inserted, prolonging her "life", if you can call it that. I will admit that there was sharp division in the Democratic party along these lines, but with the vote being 203-58, the Democrats' partial support is meaningless, as the overwhelming support from house Republicans could have pushed it through without their help.

And here I was thinking that Republicans wanted less government interference in people's lives.

[Pilgrim]

This is unfortunately what happens when you ahve an out of control Judicial branch.

The Florida Legislature made a law in regards to the Shiavo case

The Courts overturned it.

It's congresses perogative to step in and help a State Legislature when being overwhelmed by the court. Called ballance of power... it's a good thing.

As to Terri Shiavo's "Life" as you put it... you show me the MRI and PET scan that confirms she's brain dead and I'll happily jump on the band wagon of Kill her now! But you can't... because her husband won't allow them to be done.

[MrVicchio]

Considering for 15 years this woman has been denied even the chance at rehab I think it's dispicable that anyone would defend pulling her tube. She is NOT on life support so that is a bullshit line right there. She has a feeding tube because NO effort has be made to try and rehab her to feed herself. If that had been done, over the last 15 years with 0 results, then maybe this might have a point.

[SandTrout]

I've seen here on video, she's not braindead. Additionaly, I am of the opinion that unless there is writen testiment by the person to have the plug pulled, they should remain on life support.

The fact that the husband is so damn dedicated to killing this woman is highly suspicious, especialy considering that her parents have offered a divorce and to pay for Terry's continued care. This is not about compasion, the man is simply dedicated to killing his wife.

Additionaly, the people andswering that poll didn't consider the question past face value. History is almost overflowing with cases of spouces killing each other for some reason or another. I also find it odd(and disturbing) that there was no "no one" option on the poll. What is our great country coming to when human life is held in such disregard.

Whats next? Kill severly retarded kids because we don't think anyone would want to live that way? How about the incuribly insane. After that, we can just declare anyone of a particular opinion(either conservative or liberal) insane, and force "rehabilitation", and if that fails, execute the. Hell, we're allready killing babys before they even have a chance to comit a crime.

This may seem an extream viewpoint, but consider it seriously, for it is entirely possible, and if they don't stop this lunacy here and now, it is quite likely.

[Pilgrim]

Important note:

She is NOT on life Support

That was pulled years and years ago.

Due to a lack of Rehab she cannot swallow, so she has a feeding tube.

All of her organs function just fine, the only things in doubt are her Mental ability and the Obvious disconect from all motor functions.

By the Logic the Uber lefties are using on this one the following people should be put down:

Alzheimers
Retarded
People with Severe MS

Anyone who is an inconvenience

[DaShiznit]

Important note:

She is NOT on life Support

That was pulled years and years ago.

Due to a lack of Rehab she cannot swallow, so she has a feeding tube.

All of her organs function just fine, the only things in doubt are her Mental ability and the Obvious disconect from all motor functions.

By the Logic the Uber lefties are using on this one the following people should be put down:

Alzheimers
Retarded
People with Severe MS

Anyone who is an inconvenience
OF course, Pilgrim, never let the facts get in the way of a good angry rant. Are people with altzheimers capable of coincious thought? Are retarded people? Are people with severe MS? Answer to all of these: Yes. Is Terri Schiavo? No. Let's review:
-Democrats want her legal guardian to decide her fate, NOT Washington burecrats.
-This woman has zip, zero, NADA hope of recovery.
-This woman is incapable of concious thought.
-The noises and/or movements she makes are out of reflex, not concious choice.
-Who the hell would actually want to live like that?

[JakeLogan]

And lets not forget the big fat life insurance plan the husband probably has on his wife.

[Pilgrim]

OF course, Pilgrim, never let the facts get in the way of a good angry rant. Are people with altzheimers capable of coincious thought? Are retarded people? Are people with severe MS? Answer to all of these: Yes. Is Terri Schiavo? No. Let's review:
-Democrats want her legal guardian to decide her fate, NOT Washington burecrats.
-This woman has zip, zero, NADA hope of recovery.
-This woman is incapable of concious thought.
-The noises and/or movements she makes are out of reflex, not concious choice.
-Who the hell would actually want to live like that?
Wow talk about not letting the facts get in the way
How do you know?

Did the MRI that they gave her come back and confirm she has no conscious thought?
No they never gave her an MRI something most Doctors consider a minimal effort to determine PVS

Did all the rehab they tried failed giving her no chance at recovery?
No they never gave her rehab. Who knows how much she could recover... maybe none, but probably some.

Do we know that she doesn't want to live like that? That must be in her living will. OH wait... there isn't one.


When the guardian of a person who cannot care for themselves shows himself to not have that persons best interests at heart then that person should be removed as guardian.

I wish the Feds didn't have to get involved, I wish that the Judicial branch had respected the right of the legislature to make laws... but they didn't... and that's how we get here.

Really man, get your facts a little in line before you jump in the deep end. It may be all bull shit down here, but you gotta at least know how to dog-paddle

[DaShiznit]

Did the MRI that they gave her come back and confirm she has no conscious thought?
No they never gave her an MRI something most Doctors consider a minimal effort to determine PVS
I've seen the MRI on CNN. It was essentially black. The doctor who showed it confirmed that those readings are consistent with someone who is brain dead. The only activity that she has is in her brain stem (read: NOT concious thought).

Did all the rehab they tried failed giving her no chance at recovery?
No they never gave her rehab. Who knows how much she could recover... maybe none, but probably some.
True. No one has tried to rehabiltiate her. That includes her parents. But, honestly, after 15 years, and almost no mental function left, what are the odds of it actually working?

Do we know that she doesn't want to live like that? That must be in her living will. OH wait... there isn't one.
Would you? Would anyone? 87% of Americans wouldn't want to. It's doubtful that Terri wasn't one of them. Also, the source closest to her, her husband, has quoted her as saying that she wouldn't want to live that way. Who could blame her?

I wish the Feds didn't have to get involved...
I agree 100%. This should have been a private matter left to her legal guardian. But, no. The Republicans want to use this matter as a legal means and build off it, régarde:

This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.

This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.
Taken from the Republican talking points memo.

How tasteful of them.

[Pilgrim]

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp

Read that... I know, it's from the Evil NAtional Review, but it gives many facts that I think you are lacking.

I really wish that congress didn't have to get involved, but it is their obligation when someones life is being taken without due proccess (in somes opinion)

Just so you can brush up, here's the important parts of the 14th for you.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[Headrattle]

Actually, a CAT scan and an EEG have been done on Terri. I think I have a pic of her cat scan.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/images/schiavo_ct_scan.jpg
Though I don't know if it is the exact one or not. Supposedly hers has the big black spaces in it. These show that there is nothing working there.

Plus, you must understand that an EEG measures brain activity. And hers showed no recognizable brain activity. However, it also wasn't flat lined.

Pilgrim. That link was an opinion piece by a non-reporter from a reverend. So, I don't really trust it because it will be more biased then usual for National Review (which is hard to do.) Give me some statements by a doctor.

Like this one.
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/hammesfahr_interview_startling_revelations.html

I was on the other side of the fence, but now there is something that I didn't know. Namely that she responds to others. Hey, great. What does trouble me is that some of the tests are blocked and therapy isn't allowed. If we are willing to kill her we really have to make sure that she is already dead. My rational here is the same that I use when deciding whether or not to use the Death Penalty. You have to make sure that it is right before you do it. And if they are going to pull her plug, you gotta make sure she is a vegetable.

But, in my opinion, pulling the plug on those who have brain death or are completely unresponsive to therapy or stimulus, should be allowed to die.

I watch House a lot. It is a show on Fox. Pretty smart show. One of the things he said was "DNR means Do Not Resuscitate, not Do Not Treat." I agree with that.

[DaShiznit]

Those are the same "facts" being circulated by Dr. Bill "HIV can be transmitted throught sweat" Frist.

By the way, the state isn't depriving her of anything. It's her husband, and given the way she's been "living", I'd say he's acting in her best interests. I know that if I were in her position, I would have wanted the plug pulled years ago.

[Headrattle]

Not if there is a chance that she could be healed.

If my wife was in a simular situation, I would be taking every chance to get her back to normal. Of course, I might just decide to try to get a newer wife with bigger tits.

[DaShiznit]

But that's the thing: there is no chance that she will get better. Her brain is gone. She will be like this until she dies, whether it's in 10 days or 10 years. And no judge's ruling is going to change that.

[Headrattle]

The doctors don't all agree on this. Some claim she has a chance, some don't. Which is why it whould be tested more.

[DaShiznit]

The doctors don't all agree on this. Some claim she has a chance, some don't. Which is why it whould be tested more.
Yes, but Bill Frist isn't a neurologist.

[Ironyouth]

Apparently the conscious part of her brain were completely destroyed during the accident and her brain has filled with spinal fluid. She has no chance of recovery ever, She is essentially an empty body. There is no rehabilitation becuase there is nothing rehabilitate. Shes been like this for 15 fucken years already, its about time to let her die.

[Firefly]

Why are you surprised? Most Republicans watch Fox News, which is specifically why that network panders to the Conservative Right and the Neo-Cons - for viewer ratings.

Dick Cheney himself admitted that he normally watches Fox News. Fox News is generally widely-regarded by people who aren't blinded by Party-Liner toeings as the primary source of ignorance in this country. People who believe Iraq was about WMD and Al'Qaida usually get their information from - guess where - Fox News. And who are the people putting that spin out? The Republicans.

Of course, you can't claim Bush watches news - he relies on his *gasp* Republican staffers to get him the news. And guess where they get theirs? From following like sheep their party deity, Dick Cheney.

[Baneblade]

I don't watch Fox News, hehe, MSNBC has me spoiled I guess.

[Red October]

I've watched this a bit. My take....

I do not like the Federal Government getting involved at this personal level. It sets a very dangerous precedence. The law may be wrong, but I do not think the ends justify the means here.

I do not like that the husband is pushing for this when he's alreadly living with another women and children fathered by him. If he decided, enough is enough and her parents didn't object. No problem. But since they did object, then he should grant thier request and divorce and transfer gaurdian right's to them. I wouldn't be surprised if the parent file a wrongful death suit against him later. He is only making this a worse situation.

[Headrattle]

Chew on This.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002215324_texaslaw22.html
In 1999, then-Gov. Bush signed the Advance Directives Act, which lets a patient's surrogate make life-ending decisions on his or her behalf. The measure also allows Texas hospitals to disconnect patients from life-sustaining systems if a physician, in consultation with a hospital bioethics committee, concludes that the patient's condition is hopeless.

Edited for linkage.

[DaShiznit]

HR, you might want to fix that link. But the piece of legislation you noted lead to this case in Texas:
"Baby born with fatal defect dies after removal from life support (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934)" The baby's mother was against it, but thanks to Bush's law, that didn't matter. Way to champion life.

[Baneblade]

Fatal defect as in what?

What I find incredibly ironic is the left is pro Abortion, but thinks removing a feeding tube is barbaric.

[Headrattle]

LOL! That was a different debate about Racism. Sorry.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002215324_texaslaw22.html

[MrVicchio]

Ya know, last night on theree different stations they stated shes NEVER had an MRI.

Ever.

[SandTrout]

So the question is: "Who's full of bullshit?" To be fair, the 3 stations could all be reciveing erronious info from the same source.

[I Hate Pants]

She cannot be healed! EVER! Her brain is filled with spinal fluid! Do you expect rehab to magically fix her brain and get rid of the spinal fluid?????? She's like this for the rest of her life. What a sad way to live :(

[Headrattle]

Vic.
She HAS had a CAT scan and an EEG. So it isn't like her head hasn't been examined at all. An MRI might not give them any new information. However, I believe that she should have an MRI done. Namely to shut everyone up about it.

There are some nurses that stated that he chuckles at jokes and things along those lines and responds to certian stimuli. That isn't a persistant vegetative state.

[DaShiznit]

Well, folks, it's all over:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62695-2005Mar24.html

[TheN00b]

What I find incredibly ironic is the left is pro Abortion, but thinks removing a feeding tube is barbaric.

Umm, what? I think that removing the tube is the right thing to do, and I'm a lefty...

[Baneblade]

Yeah, I was tired when I made that post, the left is pro death again here too.

[DaShiznit]

Yeah, I was tired when I made that post, the left is pro death again here too.
Well! It looks like someone has been brushing up on their Official Karl Rove Buzzwords©!

[JohnClark]

Ya know, last night on theree different stations they stated shes NEVER had an MRI.

Ever.

Indeed. And why? She recieved an experimental treatment early on that implanted electronic devices into her brain in an attempt to stimulate what little remaining tissue she had. These implants are made of metal. Thus, in order to do an MRI, they would have to be removed, which would entail brain surgery with no real purpose, because the CT, EEG, and clinical exam demonstrate with certainty that she is in a PVS.

[Baneblade]

Well! It looks like someone has been brushing up on their Official Karl Rove Buzzwords©!

Karl who?

My point is, not everyone needs guidance to come to a conclusion.

Besides, I think her tube should be removed, just like every other person with even a small belief in the sanctity of marriage...oh wait.

[Firefly]

I stopped reading a while back. Pardon me if this has been mentioned before, but it does bear repeating.

Does anyone else grasp the irony of the fact that Republicans (and Congress) had reconvened to decide about this?

If you hadn't, if you've got an irony deficiency, lemme spell it out for you. Republicans are supposed to be all about less government involved the lives of the people.

I think every last one of them, Republican and Democrat, need to step the hell back and leave this matter up to the family. I know I'll be damned to hell with a cold, empty broken rifle in my hand before I let the government tell me what my family is and isn't going to do in regards to matters where they have zero business.

[DaShiznit]

I stopped reading a while back. Pardon me if this has been mentioned before, but it does bear repeating.

Does anyone else grasp the irony of the fact that Republicans (and Congress) had reconvened to decide about this?

If you hadn't, if you've got an irony deficiency, lemme spell it out for you. Republicans are supposed to be all about less government involved the lives of the people.

I think it was The Daily Show that put it best when it explained that Republicans used to stand for small government and states rights, but that was when they didn't control the federal government.

In other news, Fox has conclusively proved that Terri Schiavo is not brain dead! That's right, a psychic (http://mediamatters.org/items/200503250006) says that she is completely aware of what's going on around her! Complete with video (http://mediamatters.org/static/video/foxfriends-200503250006.mov)! Sorry guys, but I've changed my mind. When the right to "life" people have psychics testify, I think it's safe to say that us evil liberals have lost.

[MrVicchio]

They are also pro-life, they shouldn't have stuck thier noses in it, but they did.

[EarlyDawn]

I've seen the MRI on CNN. It was essentially black. The doctor who showed it confirmed that those readings are consistent with someone who is brain dead. The only activity that she has is in her brain stem (read: NOT concious thought).


True. No one has tried to rehabiltiate her. That includes her parents. But, honestly, after 15 years, and almost no mental function left, what are the odds of it actually working?


Would you? Would anyone? 87% of Americans wouldn't want to. It's doubtful that Terri wasn't one of them. Also, the source closest to her, her husband, has quoted her as saying that she wouldn't want to live that way. Who could blame her?


I agree 100%. This should have been a private matter left to her legal guardian. But, no. The Republicans want to use this matter as a legal means and build off it, régarde:


Taken from the Republican talking points memo.

How tasteful of them.
I agree on all points. She is a semi-living vegtable. Why would you want her to continue to live like that?

[Duffman]

I agree on all points. She is a semi-living vegtable. Why would you want her to continue to live like that?

I wouldnt want to be a retard or continue living if i was. So we should go out and kill them all?

[Baneblade]

There is a measurable difference between goin less than the speed limit and putting your car up on blocks.

[DaShiznit]

I wouldnt want to be a retard or continue living if i was. So we should go out and kill them all?
There's a difference between being retarded and being an essentially brain-dead vegetable.

[Headrattle]

There is a measurable difference between goin less than the speed limit and putting your car up on blocks.

That was nice. Great job.

[SandTrout]

Here's a question: Since Jeb Bush got a law passed through the florida legislature to prevent the feeding tube from being removed, on what legal grounds did the Florida Supreme court overturn the law? It seems to me like this is a clear case of the courtsystem oversteping it's bounds.

[JohnClark]

Here's a question: Since Jeb Bush got a law passed through the florida legislature to prevent the feeding tube from being removed, on what legal grounds did the Florida Supreme court overturn the law? It seems to me like this is a clear case of the courtsystem oversteping it's bounds.

If you would like to read the florida supreme court's opinion on the case, it's located here: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/flsct92304opn.pdf

Essentially what it says is that the law violates the seperation of powers, and unconstitutionally delegates the legislatures authority to the governor. A good read though, it establishes alot about the case as a whole and about the specific matter of "Terri's law".

[SandTrout]

A) How the hell is preventing someone from starving to death encroaching on their "right to privacy"?

B) The Legislature specificly issued the Governer the athority to issue the stay, meaning that the Law stated that they had to continue feeding Terrie. The Judicial branch's power is not to make law, as it is doing currently, but rather, to interpret the law as layed out be the legislature.

If anything, the Courts are encroaching on the Legislature's powers to make law.

This is a full load of bullshit. The court is writing in powers that it does not have in order to sentence a person who has commited no crime to a death sentence. According to the court there is no check on the court. Their word is law and not subject to oversight by anyone other than a higher court. Seperation of powers my ass, these judges are grasping every thread of power they can reach.

The half-funny, half-sickening part of all this is that noone's going to chalenge the power the courts have until they start messing with our money. May the gods have mercy on our souls.

Edit: Giving the Governer the athority to issue a stay is not deligating Legislative power, as the court seems to think. It is granting power, but that power was not held by the Legilslature previously, so it is not deligating.

[DaShiznit]

A) How the hell is preventing someone from starving to death encroaching on their "right to privacy"?

B) The Legislature specificly issued the Governer the athority to issue the stay, meaning that the Law stated that they had to continue feeding Terrie. The Judicial branch's power is not to make law, as it is doing currently, but rather, to interpret the law as layed out be the legislature.

If anything, the Courts are encroaching on the Legislature's powers to make law.

This is a full load of bullshit. The court is writing in powers that it does not have in order to sentence a person who has commited no crime to a death sentence. According to the court there is no check on the court. Their word is law and not subject to oversight by anyone other than a higher court. Seperation of powers my ass, these judges are grasping every thread of power they can reach.

The half-funny, half-sickening part of all this is that noone's going to chalenge the power the courts have until they start messing with our money. May the gods have mercy on our souls.

Edit: Giving the Governer the athority to issue a stay is not deligating Legislative power, as the court seems to think. It is granting power, but that power was not held by the Legilslature previously, so it is not deligating.
This is what you Cons will never get. This wasn't judicial overreach, it was legislative. This is an issue that should have never left the family, but it did. So it went to the right place, the courts. That's where it should have stayed. But, NO! The Republicans can't stand not controling this. So they have to reach in and meddle, which they had no right to do. If this entire situation had been reversed, with Democrats refusing to issue stays but the courts overruling that, you would be cheering the courts on, not whining about judicial overreach.

[JohnClark]

A) How the hell is preventing someone from starving to death encroaching on their "right to privacy"?

B) The Legislature specificly issued the Governer the athority to issue the stay, meaning that the Law stated that they had to continue feeding Terrie. The Judicial branch's power is not to make law, as it is doing currently, but rather, to interpret the law as layed out be the legislature.

If anything, the Courts are encroaching on the Legislature's powers to make law.

This is a full load of bullshit. The court is writing in powers that it does not have in order to sentence a person who has commited no crime to a death sentence. According to the court there is no check on the court. Their word is law and not subject to oversight by anyone other than a higher court. Seperation of powers my ass, these judges are grasping every thread of power they can reach.

The half-funny, half-sickening part of all this is that noone's going to chalenge the power the courts have until they start messing with our money. May the gods have mercy on our souls.

Edit: Giving the Governer the athority to issue a stay is not deligating Legislative power, as the court seems to think. It is granting power, but that power was not held by the Legilslature previously, so it is not deligating.

I think you're misunderstanding the court's ruling here. It's encroaching on her right to privacy in that you have to the right to make decisions about your health care confidentially, in consultation with medical personell, and the government does not have the authority to interfere in that process. Theresa, as established by years of litigation, would not want to continue in this state. The decision to terminate care is the sole purview of the individual, and the government has no authority to intervene.

Secondly, as far as seperation of powers go, from the opinion, "In this case, the undisputed facts show that the guardianship court authorized Michael to proceed with the discontinuance of Theresa's life support after the issue was fully litigated in a proceeding in which the Schindler's were afforded the opportunity to present evidence on all issues. This order as well as the order denying the Schindler's motion for relief from judgement were affirmed on direct appeal. The Schindler's sought review in this court, which was denied. Thereafter, the tube was removed. Subsquently, pursuant to the Governor's executive order, the nutrition and hydration tube was reinserted. Thus, the Act, as applied in this case, resulted in an executive order the effectively reversed a properly rendered final judgement and thereby constituted an unconstitutional encroachment on the power that has been reserved for the independent judiciary."
Further down in the ruling, "When the prescribed procedures are followed according to our rules of court and the governing statutes, a final judgement is issued, and all post-judgement procedures are followed, it is without questions an invasion of the authority of the judicial branch for the legislature to pass a law that allows the executive branch to interfere with the final judicial determination in this case."

As far as the delegation of authority, again, from the opinion, "However, under Article II, section 3 of the constitution, the legislature, 'may not delegate power to enact a law or the right to exercise unrestricted discretion in applying the law.' In other words, statutes granting power to the executive branch, 'must clearly announce adequate standards to guide...in the execution of the powers delegated. The statute must so clearly define the power delegate that the [executive] is precluded from acting through whim, showing favoritsm, or exercising unbridled discretion."

The Florida court's decision was completely appropriate, it was the law that was inappropriate. As they mention in the conclusion (and I'm paraphrasing because alt-tabbing between this and acrobat is getting old), were they to not strike down this law, it would set the precedent that any judicial order may be overturned by an act of the legislature.

[SandTrout]

Acctualy, a Judicial order being struck down by an act of legislature is exactly appropriate and in accordance with the sepperation of powers, as long as the law put in place goes through the proper chanels(vote in legislature and signing by the Governer). The Judical branch does not have absolute Veto power over the legislature.

Edit: Additionaly, wouldn't the governer's power to stay Terrie's execution be on par with a stay of execution of a convict or a full on pardon? These powers are given to governers to use at their discretion.

[JohnClark]

Acctualy, a Judicial order being struck down by an act of legislature is exactly appropriate and in accordance with the sepperation of powers, as long as the law put in place goes through the proper chanels(vote in legislature and signing by the Governer). The Judical branch does not have absolute Veto power over the legislature.

Edit: Additionaly, wouldn't the governer's power to stay Terrie's execution be on par with a stay of execution of a convict or a full on pardon? These powers are given to governers to use at their discretion.

Different states have different rules regarding stays of execution, and though I'm not familiar with them (I'm from Wisconsin, no death penalty) I imagine they have some framework in which to judge the case, and some option for either ending the stay or judicial review.

And as to your first point, indeed, the judicial branch does not have absolute veto power over the legislature (obviously). However, the legislature has no authority to vacate properly rendered judicial decisions through it's legislative acts. Otherwise, a court decision would be meaningless, as it could be simply set aside by legislative fiat.

[SandTrout]

So there is no check on Judicial power? I ask because that's exactly what it sounds like to me. The Legislature cannot change the law so that a previous Judicial ruling is made void. Where is the check on the Judicial branch's power? Please tell me.

[JohnClark]

So there is no check on Judicial power? I ask because that's exactly what it sounds like to me. The Legislature cannot change the law so that a previous Judicial ruling is made void. Where is the check on the Judicial branch's power? Please tell me.

The legislature certainly can. But they cannot pass a law who's express purpose is to vacate a judicial ruling, that was properly rendered. Also, that was not the sole reason for striking down the law. In addition, it violated the nondelegation doctrine and Terry Schiavo's right to make her own decisions in regards to her medical care. Read the decision, it explains things better than I can by paraphrasing.

[Biohazzard56]

Both Republicans are Democrats are hypocrits. Including myself at times, I believe that that the Republicans that are are getting involved and trying to over throw the FL Supreme court over their faith. I really do believe that Republicans want less government but because of their faith they are doing this. I think that faith plays a big part of the political decision making process and in the court system but overall it is a bad idea to interfere with the legislative system as most republicans are. I dont want to generalize here, since the percent of anti-war democrats is probably equal to the pro-live schaivo Republican crowd.

As for my personal opinion on the matter, im for pulling the tube even though; Micheal is probably doing it for personal gain. Terri would be alot happier in heaven than being a soul trapped in a dead body.

[SandTrout]

Terry Schiavo's right to make her own decisions I havent seen Terry deciding anything here, just a husband who wants to kill her.

[Baneblade]

I havent seen Terry deciding anything here, just a husband who wants to kill her.

Terri is already dead, the only thing alive here is a family feud and her social security number.

[JohnClark]

I havent seen Terry deciding anything here, just a husband who wants to kill her.

:rolleyes:
Anyway, the courts determined what decision she would've made had she not been incapacitated. That decision, rendered by her guardian, Michael Schiavo, is hers to make, as determined by the mountains of litigation in this case.

[DaShiznit]

House Majority Leader and scumbag-at-large Tom DeLay, in his infinite tastefulness, just released this statement:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=45102
Mrs. Schiavo’s death is a moral poverty and a legal tragedy. This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change. The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today. Today we grieve, we pray, and we hope to God this fate never befalls another. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Schindlers and with Terri Schiavo’s friends in this time of deep sorrow.
Now he's making threats against those who disagree with him.

That is all.

[Biohazzard56]

As badly as it scares me, I have to agree with Shiznit...

[SandTrout]

No, he's making threats to people who commited court-authorized murder, which is what this is. I don't see how any non-corrupt court could say, beyond a resonable doubt, that Terry would not have wanted to be kept alive in this condition without a writen or otherwise recorded statement. Honestly, my best guess is that the judge that made that determination got paid off, because no reasonable person would just take a guy's word for it that his wife would want to live. How many husbands and wives kill each other in this country over life issurance or other petty shit?

The doctors and the Judges committed murder and they damn well know it. Now it's a matter of whether or not they'll get away with it. I damn well hope not.

Edit: Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Headrattle]

No, he's making threats to people who commited court-authorized murder, which is what this is. I don't see how any non-corrupt court could say, beyond a resonable doubt, that Terry would not have wanted to be kept alive in this condition without a writen or otherwise recorded statement. Honestly, my best guess is that the judge that made that determination got paid off, because no reasonable person would just take a guy's word for it that his wife would want to live. How many husbands and wives kill each other in this country over life issurance or other petty shit?
I am editing this because I was wrong.

First of all, not only one court but two have ruled that she would have wanted this. They have also ruled that she is brain dead and that she will not be able to recovor from this condition. Also, you should know other little facts like the fact that her husband doesn't have any money left from the Life Insurance and that he was offered up to ten million dollers to let her live and turned it down. You should also know that Due Process of Law was done and it repeatedly, said that she would have wanted that, (I know I would have) and that she would never recover.

[Doppler]

The day I take ethics advice from Tom Delay, or from your line of rhetoric for that matter, is the day I fall on my own sword.

You've got this long line of assumptions, you call the courts corrupt because they rule in a way you dont agree with, even if there is a massive massive amount of precedent and legal sense to back up their decision. For every 1 case of spousal murder for the sake of insurance et all there are 100,000 couples who trust each other with their lives and their delegation of property upon their death. The law of the land, and the preceeding precedent has been that guardianship goes to the next of kin, in cases of marriage, the spouse is the next of kin. That should be the end of the story, but no because this is a dignity in death issue just a huge bruhaha gets started. I love how you can make these bold statements questioning others integrity trout. It sounds to me like a man willing to profane their integrity so openly has none of his own. You buy hook, line, and sinker into this media hype and most likely havn't even purused the court findings in the case, you just assume, because the decision you didn't want to see come to the fore, that they are corrupt and wrong.

Heres the kicker. It bothers me that there are so many of you, who whould press this monumenta line of half truths and assumptions on my right to make this choice, because that is the issue at stake. It bothers me even more that if my future wife were in this position she whould be smeared and libeled to twist whatever concotion they needed. It bothers me that certain members of the republican party seem hell bent on turning this into a political issue and therefore a rallying cry.

From my point of view, part of liberty is my spouse and I being able to make our own decisions about our medical care, including terminal care. Part of my pursuit of happiness is knowing that my wishes can be carried out without over eager politicians taking a shit on my chest before I'm dead yet.

It's the shred of doubt argument, since you guys keep comparing this to an execution, there is reasonable doubt that Terry wanted it to be this way, therefore her liberty must be protected.

lNo, he's making threats to people who commited court-authorized murder, which is what this is. I don't see how any non-corrupt court could say, beyond a resonable doubt, that Terry would not have wanted to be kept alive in this condition without a writen or otherwise recorded statement. Honestly, my best guess is that the judge that made that determination got paid off, because no reasonable person would just take a guy's word for it that his wife would want to live. How many husbands and wives kill each other in this country over life issurance or other petty shit?

The doctors and the Judges committed murder and they damn well know it. Now it's a matter of whether or not they'll get away with it. I damn well hope not.

Edit:

[MrVicchio]

Judges, namely Supreme Court Judges, that start quoteing foreign laws.. scare the hell out of me.

[SandTrout]

I am villanizeing the courts because due process of law is supposed to have to be subject to ressonable doubt when issueing sentences like this. This is not just an issue of the feeding tube being remove, Terri was banned from beeing fed in any way, manner, or shape. The court issued a deccission that said Terry must die, and is therefor removeing her right to life.

This kind of decission needs to be subject to the question "Can we say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Terry would not have wanted to contiue living in this state?" My answer is "Not without a recorded statement made my Terry." The fact that the judges lack this judgement leaves their credibility in deep susspicion in my view. I have seen too much of how the corrupt court system to set these judges on any kind of pedistal.

[JohnClark]

I am villanizeing the courts because due process of law is supposed to have to be subject to ressonable doubt when issueing sentences like this. This is not just an issue of the feeding tube being remove, Terri was banned from beeing fed in any way, manner, or shape. The court issued a deccission that said Terry must die, and is therefor removeing her right to life.

This kind of decission needs to be subject to the question "Can we say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Terry would not have wanted to contiue living in this state?" My answer is "Not without a recorded statement made my Terry." The fact that the judges lack this judgement leaves their credibility in deep susspicion in my view. I have seen too much of how the corrupt court system to set these judges on any kind of pedistal.

Well, that's your opinion. But don't blame the judges for interpreting and applying the law in the correct manner because you don't care for the law. In cases such as this, the law requires clear and convincing evidence. Between Michael's testimony, the testimony of two other people related to Terry, and the other evidence presented, the judge found the evidence clear and convincing to conclude that Terry would not choose to be maintained by artificial means. Her parents did not dispute that at the hearing, saying only that they did not know what she wanted, and that even if they knew she did not want to be maintained in this manner they would have tried to keep the tube in. The courts, in this case, applied the law as written, and made the right decision. And the sad part about this whole case is, it's not at all about Terry. Many, many people in similar positions are her have the feeding tubes removed when it becomes clear that they will not improve. This is a common practice (common in terms of the numbers involved, obviously not a whole lot of people end up in a state like Mrs. Schiavo's), and it is not barbaric, evil, immoral or illegal. Mrs. Schiavo's case has for some reason risen to national attention, and to hear pundits take about it you would assume she was the first person to ever have a feeding tube disconnected. She is by no means the first, and she will not be the last. Hopefully, however, people who have to make this decision about their loved ones in the future will not have to deal with the kind of tragic absurdities that have surrounded this case.

[SandTrout]

So the law states that someone on trial for a crime has more rights than someone in a hospital?

Maybe I was wrong about the Judges missreading the law, but that is still extreamly fucked up. Regardless of weather your on trial or not, noone's life should be ended without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[JohnClark]

So the law states that someone on trial for a crime has more rights than someone in a hospital?

Maybe I was wrong about the Judges missreading the law, but that is still extreamly fucked up. Regardless of weather your on trial or not, noone's life should be ended without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I disagree, because in this case we were not trying to prove guilt or innocence. The fact that she was in a persistent vegitative state was not in dispute in the original hearing, the question was wether or not Terry would wish to be maintained in that state. No evidence was offered to suggest she would be, but significant evidence was offered to suggest she would not be. The judge, and every judge subsequent to him found clear and convincing evidence that she would elect to remove the feeding tube.

[SandTrout]

Then why did they ban the administering of food and water through standard means?

[JohnClark]

Then why did they ban the administering of food and water through standard means?

That's like saying why do they ban bag valve mask ventilation when they take patients off of respirators. They determined that Terry would not choose to be maintained in this state. Food and water by mouth for her presents are serious risk of aspiration anyway, regardless of the judicial order. That's why she was on the feeding tube to being with.

[ChronoSphere]

Originally Posted by The US Constitution
Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


This would apply if the state or a state actor would be the one depriving. Since this case is construed as a private medical matter, not an action of the state, this article is irrelevant.

And to those folks who are accusing the judges in this case of not following the law or being an 'activist judge' as the conservative right likes to label the judges who rule against their interests, I quote this from the end of the concurring opinion from the 11th court of appeals in Atlanta.


C. Conclusion
The Separation of powers implicit in our constitutional design was created "to assure, as nearly as possible, that each branch of government woudl confine itself to its assigned responsibility. But when the fevor of political passions moves the Executive and the Legislative branches in ways inimical to basic constitutional principles, it is the duty of the judiciary to intervene. If sacrifices to the independance of the judiciary are permitted today, precedent is established for the constitution transgressions of tomorrow. Accordingly, we must concientiously guard the independance of our judiciary and safeguard the Constitution, even in the face of the unfathomable human tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavoand her family and the recent events related to her plight which have troubed the consciences of many. Realizing this dity, I conclude that Pub. L. 103-9 is an unconstitutional infringement on core tenets underlying our constitutional system. Had Congress or the Florida Legislature, in their legislative capacities, been able to constitutionally amend applicable law, we would have been constrained to apply that law. By opting to pass Pub. L. 109-3 instead, Congress chose to overstep constitutional boundaries into the provence of the Judiciary. Such an Act cannot be countenanced. Moreover, we are bound by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine not to excercise any other jurisdictional bases to override a final state judgement. Should the citizens of Florida determine that its law should be changed, it should be done legislatively. Were the courts to change the law, as the petitioners and Congress invite us to do, an "activist judge" criticism would be valid.

The judges were following the law as it was written. Congress was basically trying to overturn a court order instead of changing the law, which is within its perview. And even then, Congress doesn't have that power to affect state law. The Florida Legislature fell into the same trap, by improperly delegating power to the governer to interfere with a court order. If they really wanted to do something, they would have had to change the law regarding medical decisions for the incapacited and the like - which then would not work I believe because any law they pass would not be retroactive.

[JakeLogan]

Between Michael's testimony, the testimony of two other people related to Terry, Two other people related to her? They're (or at this point were) her parents, it's not like they were her cousin's brother in law ex-wife's sister's boyfriend. Personally I think the parents should have had a say in it but no point in arguing it now.

[ChronoSphere]

Two other people related to her? They're (or at this point were) her parents, it's not like they were her cousin's brother in law ex-wife's sister's boyfriend. Personally I think the parents should have had a say in it but no point in arguing it now.

According to Florida law, it is the spouse that has every say in teh matter, not the parents, and I would think it's like that in most states. You want the parents to have a say in cases where the incapacitated does not have a living will? Write to your congressman and have them change the law.