Terri Schiavo is going to die because Michael Schiavo has better lawyers.
Exhibit #1) This article in the St. Petersburg Times (Memories diverge on what Terri wanted), explains it all.
On the Monday in January 2000 when the Schiavo case went to trial, the Schindlers’ lawyer remembers being surprised to see a St. Petersburg Times reporter in court.
What are you doing here, Patricia Campbell asked. She had no anticipation that the case would make the front page.
Back then, Campbell was working alone, without an assistant to help. On the other side was Michael Schiavo’s lawyer, George Felos, who had handled the seminal right-to-die case of Estelle Browning, which went to the Florida Supreme Court in 1990.
Campbell said in an interview Wednesday that she took the case out of sympathy for the Schindlers. She said about 20 attorneys had turned down the couple, who had little money.
Campbell, who now has a prestigious AV rating from the Martindale-Hubbell lawyer peer review system, had never handled a right-to-die case. She did not have money to find witnesses, she said. Indeed, Campbell did not take depositions from Joan and Scott Schiavo before the trial. Normally, that would be a basic step for a lawyer preparing for trial.
Campbell presented just two witnesses to address the claim that Terri would not want her feeding tube removed.
[More]Exhibit #2) This morning Florida’s Department of Children and Families missed an opportunity to legally take custody of Terri Schiavo. WFTS reports:
Wednesday afternoon, Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer issued a temporary restraining order, preventing DCF from removing Terri from the Pinellas Park hospice where her life-sustaining feeding tube has been disconnected.
This morning at 8, DCF filed an appeal to Greer’s order. When they did so, an automatic stay of the order went into effect, meaning that they could intervene.
The attorney for Terri’s husband Michael (George Felos), who opposes any attempts to prolong Terri’s life, said he suspected DCF wasn’t aware of that stay until he had filed a motion for a new restraining order.Legally Terri’s family was never able to recover from that one day in court 5 years ago. Felos was just rubbing salt in the wound this morning as he continued his legal dominance…
I have seldom been so moved by a topic as this case. I have poured over available trial transcripts, deposiitons, etc, to try and understand the issues.
The case boils down to 3 issues:
– Is Michael Shiavo the legal guardian, which gives him the decision making power?
– Did Terri Shiavo desire to have the tubes pulled?
– Is she in a recoverable state? Or is she indeed in a persistive Vegetative state?
Point 1. From early testimony I read, and Florida Law, I believe the court made the right decision. The subsequent chatter about Michael is not substantiated, and has been considered many times in a fair basis and rejected. Personal opinion… I married my wife precisely because she IS the one I want making the call if I ever get this sick. Those of you who believe in the Sanctity of Marriage have to see this as an immutable conclusion. Ask Senator Frist who made the call when his father had to have life support removed. Frist’s Mother, of course.
Point 2. There are 3 witnesses who swear under oath that Terri did not want to be a vegetable, sustained by tubes. Many people tell things to their friends and lovers that they really would not bring up in front of their parents. How many subjects are taboo around family and parents (and your church). The court could ONLY take testimony on what people actually heard, not heresay, or implied intent (ie. “I knew Terri and she would never want that”)
Again, the courts have consistently found that Terri did not want tubes, and to be left in a vegetative state.
Point 3. If you ignore Michael’s Doctors, Schindler’s Doctors, and Doctors who have not examined the patient, you find that the remaining doctors (appointed by the court) unanimously concluded she is in a persistive vegetative state. Many of the people popping up recently with DCF are known activists who have strong ties to RTL and Conservative Christian organization. Again, ignore the partisans on both sides, and the impartial doctors conclude the same thing.
So at the end of the day, ignoring all the pablum from the conservative circles, congress, and the internet, this is a fairly simple case from a legal standpoint. From a moral and ethical standpoint it is obviously much more complex.
A word about the judges in this case. I know the conservatives would love this to be filled with ‘activist judges”, liberals, and Clinton Appointees, but his is not the case. Greer is an ELECTED judge, who is conservative, and very well respected. Whitmore (Federal) is hightly regarded, and cannot be classified a liberal by any stretch. The Judges who voted to deny the appeal in Atlanta consisted of a Bush and a Clinton appointee. You can imagine that the Supreme Courts of the US & Florida are not a smoking gun either. Personal Opinion: The people who have threatened the judges in this case need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Their actions subvert our country in a most vile way. The Church who asked Judge Greer to leave are the most un-Christian people I can imagine.
I feel for the Schindler’s, and Shiavo’s, as I have had to go through this with my mother, father, and father in law.
Correction in previous post… It was Tom Delay who’s father had life support removed, and Tom DeLay’s mother who had the final say. They were lucky that all family members agreed. It might be also noted that the DeLay family files a product liability lawsuit in response to their father’s death. Hmmmmm. I though Tom DeLay didn’t believe in those kind of lawsuits.
My apologize to the Frists for my typo.
The case boils down to 3 issues:
According to you, but not necessarily to everyone else.
Point 1- Is Michael Shiavo the legal guardian, which gives him the decision making power?
They are no longer living as man and wife. He has a clear conflict of interest. Therefore, he should have been removed as legal guardian.
I married my wife precisely because she IS the one I want making the call if I ever get this sick.
And if she divorces you, or is filling the roll of spouse to another man, can you honestly say you wd want her making life and death decisions for you? Can other people? There is an old legal maxim that the appearance of impropriety is impropriety and shd be treated as such. Can you not see how others wd view this as a conflict of interest and therefore it shd be treated as a conflict of interest?
Those of you who believe in the Sanctity of Marriage have to see this as an immutable conclusion.
Uh, no. No we don’t. I love when people state opinion and call it conclusion.
Point 2 – Did Terri Shiavo desire to have the tubes pulled?
God, I wish people would stop calling human beings vegetables or vegetative. All three wits never said anything until long after the fact. And I do not remember any of the “recovered memories” of the wits describing long, informed, discussions. Only one person found these wits credible and that was applying the lowest level of burden of proof. Uh, by the way, hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the matter asserted. IOW, Terri Schiavo did not make the statement in court. So, any testimony as to Schiavo’s wishes is hearsay.
Does the fact that it is hearsay make it inadmissible? Nope. Does the fact that it is admissible by law make it credible evidence? Nope. “I knew Terri and she would never want that” Objection, you’re Honor, lack of foundation and speculativie . Sustained.
Again, the courts have consistently found that Terri did not want tubes, and to be left in a vegetative state.
No, only one person did. Every other court reviewed the case for procedural errors. No one else was in a position to judge credibility because they neither heard nor saw the wits testify. It’s one of the reasons why the right to confrontation is so important and is guaranteed by the constitution. Now I don’t’ know, and I would be surprise if it did, whether Florida gave the right to a jury in this type of case. Still, for something as serious as ending someone’s life, I find the lack of procedural guarantees abhorrent. And I, like a number of people, don’t find Greer’s findings of fact credible.
Point 3. – Is she in a recoverable state? Or is she indeed in a persistive Vegetative state?
You are assuming the doctors appointed aren’t biased. All expert wits have biases. And even if a court gives you a choice of a selection of three, due to the luck of the draw, you can be literally screwed. To make a determination one would have to read everything the doctor has written. I assume you didn’t do that. I’m not going to argue what state she is in since it’s irrelevant if she did not give consent or she has not been afforded due process. I am sure there are many others who could argue with you that she is not in pvs.
Many of the people popping up recently with DCF are known activists who have strong ties to RTL and Conservative Christian organization.
I have no idea who DCF is or RTL. I, and a number of people who have similar opinions as I do, are not associated with any Conservative Christian organizations. But, acting in your same spirit, should I card people for their affiliation with Libertarian, Democrat, or Progressive affiliations? Should their opinions be automatically dismissed?
Again, ignore the partisans on both sides, and the impartial doctors conclude the same thing.
And again, this is an opinion and not fact.
So at the end of the day, ignoring all the pablum from the conservative circles, congress, and the internet,
Wow! You’re sure not biased! May I dismiss your opinion in the way you dismissed others based on your political affiliation?
this is a fairly simple case from a legal standpoint.
From a legal standpoint this is anything but a fairly simple case.
A word about the judges in this case. I know the conservatives would love this to be filled with ‘activist judges”, liberals, and Clinton Appointees, but his is not the case.
Most people don’t have a clue on how to evaluate judges. They don’t sit in their court rooms and listen to their rulings or read their written opinions. And even if they did, the average person wouldn’t understand most of them. I don’t know of too many people who when it comes down to voting for a judge knows who to vote for. They may ask an atty friend, who often doesn’t have a clue, either. Just because someone was nice to you when you appeared in their court once or twice isn’t a ringing endorsement. Just because some one ruled in your favor isn’t one either. They get these ratings from the bar association but so much of that, and other endorsements from other groups, is based on politics plain and simple.
Greer is an ELECTED judge, who is conservative, and very well respected.
And your opinion is based on what? Someone else’s opinion? And what is their opinion based on? Why do you label him conservative? How is that relevant to his decision making abilities?
Whitmore (Federal) is hightly regarded, and cannot be classified a liberal by any stretch.
He is a Clinton appointee. I thought you were touting that there wee no Clinton appointees? On what/who do you base your opinion on that he is highly regarded? And on what do they base their opinion on that he is highly regarded? On what do you base your opinion on that he cannot be classified as a liberal by any stretch ?
The Judges who voted to deny the appeal in Atlanta consisted of a Bush and a Clinton appointee.
How is this relevant? Have you actually read their decisions and informed an opinion based on them?
You can imagine that the Supreme Courts of the US & Florida are not a smoking gun either.
And what does this mean? Really, this is all gobbly gook. It’s like you’re giving a wink wink nod nod and that is suppose to be a basis for a serious opinion. It isn’t.
Personal Opinion:
Almost everything you have written is personal opinion.
The people who have threatened the judges in this case need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Their actions subvert our country in a most vile way.
Well, they committed a criminal act. They have not “subverted the country”. I have to say, I’m really sick of this “ life as we know it will come to an end” or this will created a “constitutional crisis” over the top language. Obviously, you aren’t the only guilty party. But, hey, no it hasn’t, and no it won’t.
The Church who asked Judge Greer to leave are the most un-Christian people I can imagine.
Are churches not to take positions on social issues based on it’s teachings because it may conflict with an opinion of a member? I don’t think so.
You ignore that there were other “unrelated problems with the church” and Greer. Why did you leave that out? Greer stopped attending and donating to the church. Then he told the St. Pete’s Times on 3/6/05: “If I don’t like what the St. Pete Times writes about me, my only recourse is to cancel my subscription.” So he stopped his donations to the church, though he is still a member.
So, the church said to him, “I am not asking you to do this, but since you have taken the initiative of withdrawal, and since your connection with Calvary continues to be a point of concern, it would seem the logical and, I would say, biblical course.”
It seems perfectly reasonable to me. Neither side was happy with the other. And per Greer, the problem went beyond the Schiavo case.
I feel for the Schindler’s, and Shiavo’s,
I don’t think the Schindler would think that you really “feel” for them. Sorry.
If someone were to ‘starve to death’ an animal, they’d be put in jail. When is it okay to kill another human? How is it that people actually justify doing this to Terri??? What is this nation turning into??! Terri was not on ‘life support’ she was merely being fed. If her family(parents/siblings) wished to care for her, they should’ve been allowed. As for her spouse, he divorced her in every aspect but legally when he began his affair with his lover. This is truly a sad place we call America. May God bless Terri and her loved ones.
Julie/Cheri,
The three pooints I brought up are the legal points. Sure there are moral points as well, but this is a country of laws.
Actually, most of my points were the result of an impartial evaluation by a court/Jeb Bush Guardian ad litem.
On Michael dating other woemn, this was done with the encouragement of the Schindlers. As reported in the Guardian ad Litem’s report to jeb Bush. Read it.
http://floridahealthinfo.hsc.usf.edu/TheresaSchiavoFinalReport1December2003.pdf
There were 5 doctors who review this case in detail. 3 found her to be in a Persistive Vegetative State. 2 were unsure. The 2 who were unsure were picked by the Schindlers, but could not produce any medical or scientific evidence to the contrary and were unclear in their testimony. Again, not my words, but the words of Jeb Bushes appointee.
As I said in my posting. IGNORE the doctors picked by Schindlers and Shiavo. What do the independently appointed doctors say? Of course they don’t agree with you, so you won’t listen.
If the Schindlers came up with ONE real Doctor, who has any credentials at all, and is not obviously a rabid Pro-Lifer, I would take pause. But every single person they bring to the table is tainted. Like it or not, it is a fact. How about asking the head of nuerology of the Mayo Clinic? I have no idea who that is, or what they think, but at least they would be credible.
This is fairly simple from a legal standpoint, that’s why it has survides 30 rulings, the Congress, the Governor, and the President. If it was more complex it would have found some appealable issue.
Conservative vs. Liberial is measurable, but I am not sure you would ever agree with any measurement.
Over 30 rulings have made the Schindlers look like a family who cannot let go and is trying to slander and lie to get their way.
As for the people who threatened the judges. This kind of crime is worse than usual, since it has a multiplicative effect. Since judges have a great impact on society in general, threats against them have a braoder effect than a threat against a single private individual.
If you don’t like the laws of this country, then change the law. Don’t cry when the law doesn’t see things your way.
I am tired of the whacked out radical Christian Conservative Minority ramming their percieved morals down our throats and in other orafices. It’s OK to send Johnny off to bomb the daylights of thousands of innocent Iraqi’s but let one woman who has essentially been a vegetable for 15 years die a peaceful death, and they are all up in arms. and yes, it is peaceful. Care to debate that?
BTW…
In the eyes of the Catholic church, Terri and Michael are married FOREVER. In the church they are considered married and will remain so until one dies, not until one has an affair.
A conundrum, huh? On one hand, the right to lifers say she was a devout catholic and would want life support ad nauseum, but then immediately assume she would violate church tenets when her husband proceeded on with his life at the urging of her parents.
BTW, A plausible reason he never mentioned her desire not to be “on tubes” until much later is that HE didn’t let go of thinking she would get better. In the Guardian’s report to Jeb Bush, it is clear that Michael was extremely attentive to terri for the first few years. Not opinion, but Facts from the court docs.
There is something intrinsically evil and wrong about waiting and wathcing someone die. I saw the last few hours of my great aunts death while in a hospital. She was given a constant morphine drip to take away the continuous startled look and to keep her “comfortable”. It was an awful experience and I could not help but think how unnatural it was to watch her die like that. Unlike when my son was born and the hopeful anticipation of his birth, the excitement of life, it was thrilling and natural. When a person is ill or in a life threatening situation it is right to do whatever is possible to save that persons life, I think that is what Terri’s family is trying to do. It is only natural to try to preserve life, it goes against the natural order of things to purposefully put someones life to an end. God help those who try to play God.
The three pooints I brought up are the legal points. Sure there are moral points as well, but this is a country of laws.
No, they are your opinion. My God, what do they teach you in school these days?!
Point 1: I believe …. my wife….I want …. immutable conclusion
Not! No legal points there buddy boy.
Actually, most of my points were the result of an impartial evaluation by a court/Jeb Bush Guardian ad litem.
Just because YOU label something inpartial does not make it impartial. It is YOUR opinion. Jeesh!
And exactly what are you trying to say? A court GAL? A Bush GAL? Don’t answer because I don’t want any more of my time wasted. The court is not impartial because you say it is. Bush did not appt the GAL. The legislature gave the authority for the court to appt the GAL. Obviously, you have the need to label it something it is clearly is not. Whether it is out of ignorance or deciept, it’s a bore.
And I don’t’ give a shit who he is dating or why. He is not acting like her husband therefore he shd not have guardianship based on the fact he is her husband. Plus, there is a clear conflict of interest. He shd have been removed as guardian. I have never run across a situation where a more blatant conflict of interest and guardianship wasn’t terminated.
[snip]Again, not my words, but the words of Jeb Bushes appointee.
See above. Also, as I previously stated, I don’t care what state she may be in. There is insufficient evidence as to her intentions and she was not afforded due process.
As I said in my posting. IGNORE the doctors picked by Schindlers and Shiavo. What do the independently appointed doctors say? Of course they don’t agree with you, so you won’t listen.
See above and learn to read. Try addressing the arguments I made and not the arguments you want me to make. On second thought, don’t address the arguments I’ve made because I don’t want you wasting my time any more.
If the Schindlers came up with ONE real Doctor, who has any credentials at all, and is not obviously a rabid Pro-Lifer, I would take pause.
Blah blah blah. See above.
Like it or not, it is a fact.
Like it or not there is no clear evidence of her intention and she was not afforded procedural due process.
This is fairly simple from a legal standpoint, that’s why it has survides 30 rulings, the Congress, the Governor, and the President. If it was more complex it would have found some appealable issue.
See, this is what I hate about these internet pissing matches. You do not know what the hell you are talking about. You are clearly not an atty yet you feel qualified to give opinions of law and lecture on appellate procedure. Give it up, poseur!
You are willing to kill this woman based on the decision of one judge. She was never, NEVER given full appellate review. That a decision this serious could be made based on one person’s findings and with the lowest and I mean the lowest burden of proof is disgusting.
Conservative vs. Liberial is measurable, but I am not sure you would ever agree with any measurement.
TRANSLATION of ABOVE STATEMENT BY DAVE: You were right. I don’t’ know what I’m talking about when I talk about the evaluation of judges and what these labels mean or their validity. I’m just a jerk with an opinion and a political axe to grind.
Over 30 rulings have made the Schindlers look like a family who cannot let go and is trying to slander and lie to get their way.
And it makes you look like a ghoul who has some bizarre interest in seeing this woman killed.
As for the people who threatened the judges. This kind of crime is worse than usual, since it has a multiplicative effect. Since judges have a great impact on society in general, threats against them have a braoder effect than a threat against a single private individual.
You love to hear the sound of your fingers typing, don’t you? Threatening a judge is a crime. Threatening this judge does not make it a greater crime. Judge’s are threaten every day. The perpetrators are arrested and prosecuted every day. At no time has life as we know it come to an end! Get a grip!
If you don’t like the laws of this country, then change the law. Don’t cry when the law doesn’t see things your way.
Here’s a better idea: Don’t shoot your ignorant mouth off about the law when you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.
I am tired of the whacked out radical Christian Conservative Minority ramming their percieved morals down our throats and in other orafices. It’s OK to send Johnny off to bomb the daylights of thousands of innocent Iraqi’s but let one woman who has essentially been a vegetable for 15 years die a peaceful death, and they are all up in arms. and yes, it is peaceful. Care to debate that?
What’s to debate? You’re just a fucking nutjob who wants to make this into a political issue because you hate anyone who doesn’t think like you.
In the eyes of the Catholic church, Terri and Michael are married FOREVER. In the church they are considered married and will remain so until one dies, not until one has an affair.
How irrelevant to the argument.
A conundrum, huh?
Not at all. Not even an issue.
BTW, A plausible reason he never mentioned her desire not to be “on tubes” until much later is that HE didn’t let go of thinking she would get better.
An even more plausible reason is that he was committing fraud against the insurance company.
In the Guardian’s report to Jeb Bush, it is clear that Michael was extremely attentive to terri for the first few years. Not opinion, but Facts from the court docs.
Had to maximize the potential pay off from the insurance company? Okay, you convinced me. He’s scum.
I’m a nut job? Puleeze.
Just include me with the other 70% of Americans who think the tubes should have been pulled long ago. Majority doesn’t make right, but at least I am in good company.
I keep reading all this BS about the case, yet it is never substantiated by any rational evidence.
For instance, all the bleating about no brain scans ever being done to Terri, yet 2 were introduced as evidence in 2000 & 2002. I guess that is just my opinion. Sorry.
Question: Why were the Schindelrs convinced Terri was in a Persistive Vegetative State until they did not get any of the settlement? Then they somehow came to the realization that they weren’t getting any money, and suddenly they turn on Michael, demand custody, and say she is alert and responsive. Seems like they were trying to get control of all that money. They are very bitter people lashing out at everyone. Most recent delusion: “The Hospice is trying to kill Terri with Morphine.” What a crock. If I was the hospice, I’d probably sue the snot of them for that.
Now I see Michael is pushing for an autopsy. I guess we will at least find something out about what’s upstairs. Again, maybe the Medical Examiner in Pinellas County will be a liar too. You never know how deep the “Culture of Death” run… correct? We are all a bunch of ghouls to you.
In fact, we are just realists. I have been through the death watch/DNR decison making 3 times in my life. Hope to never have to do it again. Have you? Do you have an Aunt packed in some home, essentially getting pumped full of meds every day? Think she is enjoying it? At least you have someone to visit to make you feel better.
Julie wheezed and ranted . . . .
Blah-blah-blah-blah, (continue ad nauseam)
You really are a sick little troll aren’t you?
Even when confronted with evidence to the contrary, you still hold to your stupid, ignorant, lop-sided rants.
They used to be amusing, now they are tiring. You and -S- should share a blog with your common delusion.
I
I’m a nut job?,
And a real foamer, too!
Just include me with the other 70% of Americans who think the tubes should have been pulled long ago.
You mean the ones that are too dumb to recognize the most obviously biased questions I have ever seen written? Yeah. You’re that dumb, too.
I keep reading all this BS about the case, yet it is never substantiated by any rational evidence.
You read the crap you write?
For instance, all the bleating about no brain scans ever being done to Terri, yet 2 were introduced as evidence in 2000 & 2002. I guess that is just my opinion. Sorry.
Actually, it’s another example of you answering the arguments you want me to make and not the arguments I made. You must do really poorly on exams.
Question:
[snip another diversionary technique/further example of your poor reading comprehension skills]
Now I see Michael is pushing for an autopsy.
Push?
1. There wd have been an autopsy no matter what.
2. And if there weren’t, all he had to do is request one.
3. He could always pay for one himself.
4. Must you fudge everything?
I guess we will at least find something out about what’s upstairs.
Maybe, we could do the same with you?
In fact, we are just realists.
Are you kidding me? You see boogiemen everywhere you look. Ranting and raving how Christians and republicans are going to get you. Jeesh! Get help already. You have some need to pretend you know what you are talking about when you clearly don’t. You can’t distinguish fact from opinion – especially your own.
[snip the predictable ‘you could never have been through what I have been through so you could not possibly know and therefore you have no right to an opinion’ blah blah blah argument. Sorry, dude, I keep private facts off the internet. But frankly, life experience-wise, you’re no competition to me.]
Do you have an Aunt packed in some home, essentially getting pumped full of meds every day?
No. Got one you’re trying to unload?
Think she is enjoying it?
Not if you keep threatening to starve her.
At least you have someone to visit to make you feel better.
Uh, you’re the one who needs to kill off the disabled to make yourself feel superior, not me.
You really are a sick little troll aren’t you?
Oh, no! It’s the “because you don’t agree with me you must be a sick little troll argument!” lol!
Even when confronted with evidence to the contrary,
Uh, still waiting.
you still hold to your stupid, ignorant, lop-sided rants.
Sorry, you have me confused with your friends, dumb shit and dave.
They used to be amusing, now they are tiring.
Yeah, all the Christian bashing and neocon (code for jew) bashing by you and your friends is both tiring and disgusting.
You and -S- should share a blog with your common delusion.
I would be honored to share anything with -S-. But, alas, she is the deluded one, not I. She thinks she can reason with people like you and keeps trying. Me, I see you for what you really are. I guess -S- still holds out hope because she is, gasp, a Christian.
Thanks Julie,
I finally made a team (me, DavodB, & DS). I didn’t know you have to annoint me. Bless you.
Actually, I did pretty damn well on exams (20 years ago). Of course on the ones that count (i.e. real life), I do even better.
I don’t resort to name calling and belittling. I don’t have to, the facts speak for themselves.
Tell me, Julie, try this for an exercise. explain the Michael Shiavo side of the case, in plain words. Can you even do it? Are you so blind that you cannot even write one sentence without a vindictive phrase?
Who are you Julie? A lawyer (I hope not), a Nurse (doubtful since you know nothing of pain and suffering). What do you do when you ar enot suffering us with your spew?
Bloody Americans are so backwards sometimes… Europe is so much more progressive in this area. Canada has even had over 3 of these cases already… why has is not been a media circus up here? because we have more class, and CNN doesn’t run our country.
I finally made a team (me, DavodB, & DS). I didn’t know you have to annoint me. Bless you.
Anoint? Lump is a better word.
Actually, I did pretty damn well on exams (20 years ago). Of course on the ones that count (i.e. real life), I do even better.
Unbelievable for someone with such poor reading and analytical skills.
I don’t resort to name calling and belittling.
Sure you do. You’re just too biased to even recognize that you’re doing it.
I don’t have to, the facts speak for themselves.
You’re cherry picked irrelevant, off point facts? Oh, yeah, they are sooooo persuasive.
Tell me, Julie, try this for an exercise. explain the Michael Shiavo side of the case, in plain words. Can you even do it?
Why would I do it? This isn’t a game. You’ve wasted more than enough of my time. But, keep posting and I’ll keep responding. I won’t, however, have you dictate what I write.
Are you so blind that you cannot even write one sentence without a vindictive phrase?
Not so blind as to fall for this rhetorical crap.
Who are you Julie? A lawyer (I hope not), a Nurse (doubtful since you know nothing of pain and suffering).
I hope you don’t have to depend on your intuitive skills to make a living.
What do you do when you ar enot suffering us with your spew?
You’re the one spewing. I’m the one with the shovel trying to clean up your mess.
Bloody Americans are so backwards sometimes… Europe is so much more progressive in this area. Canada has even had over 3 of these cases already… why has is not been a media circus up here? because we have more class, and CNN doesn’t run our country.
Then make sure you and your ilk stay out of this country. We can’t seem to keep you out. You’re whole identity as a nation is only “we’re not American.” That’s it. Nothing more. And nothing to brag about. And, don’t forget you’re entirely dependent on this country for both your national security and your economy. Class? A boring bunch of followers is a more accurate discription.
ps: cnn has the lowest rating around. And even if it had the highest ratings, if you haven’t noticed, this country isn’t led around by the msm. God, if you ever what to see a more rabid and bias press – look at your own.
Since this thread started out on a competency of counsel topic, I believe that the Schindlers aren’t the only ones who need better lawyers.
Julie, maybe you could read this and report back to the team….
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/33005ca11rhrng2.pdf
Essentially, the Fed courts are kicking the Schindlers, since the Act passed, but Bush & Crew Dictated HOW the Federal review had to be performed. Clear violation of Separation of Power, and thus deemed unconstitutional.
In fact the opinion gives them a roadmap for the next time. Read closely Julie… Maybe call Frist and give him a few pointers….
I especially like the Zinger at the end, when the Opinion states, to uphold the Act, would be to legislate from the bench by creating new law, hence being open to being called ‘Activist Jurists”.
I think Frist and Crew pissed off the judges… Nice quotes on the good Doctor’s subversive plan to get the tube put in, since obviously the court could not review, given the restraints in the ACT, without keeping Shiavo alive long enough to make a ruling.
Report: You understand little to nothing of the opinion.
Julie,
What part of this sentence do you not get:
“In resolving the Shiavo controversy it is my judgement that, despite sincere and altruisitc motivation, the legistlative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers’ blue print for the governance of a free people — our Constitution.”
I may not be a lawyer, but I can read.
This was a denial of a hearing en banc. Six of the eleven justices gave no opinion. So, for you to extrapolate th opinion of one on to the rest is, frankly, dishonest.
Two of the justices concurred in the denial, not the opinion of justice one, solely to respond to one of the dissenting justices. Please note how these justices spell out what I have been telling you ad nauseam regarding the required deference given to the fact finder. So, all your yapping about independent review of the facts, is dishonest.
Two of the justices wd have granted the hearing and would have granted an injunction to put her tube back in and stop the barbaric starving of her. Note the criticisms in the footnotes of the other decisions regarding the standards to grant injunctive relief. Also, the justices found the Schindler’s had stated a claim based on a violation of due process under the 14th amendment. Also, a claim under insufficiency of the evidence. Note their attack of Birch’s opinion.
I bet you never even read it, did you? And of course, you don’t have the intellect to understand it let alone come to an independent decision as to who is correct. So once again, give it up. You do not know what the hell you are talking about and never will.
Julie-
I bet you want to be Ann Coulter when you grow up don’t you? I just read her diatribe and it reminded me of you.
Funny you both have the habit of denegrating the intelligence of someone who doesn’t agree with you.
Ann make a lot of money entertaining the folks, do you?
You are absolutely correct that the only finding of fact was by Greer. Fortunately he was correct in his assessment.
I bet you want to be Ann Coulter when you grow up don’t you? I just read her diatribe and it reminded me of you.
No, I’m quite happy being me. Why, do you want to be Ann Coulter? She did graduate Harvard law, by the way. Being the narcissus you are, no doubt you believe you know more about law than she does. But, of course, that is your disorder talking.
Funny you both have the habit of denegrating the intelligence of someone who doesn’t agree with you.
Funny. It was YOU in your FIRST POST who insulted everyone’s intelligence. And it was YOU who denigrated the people you disagreed with. You are so brainwashed that you are incapable of recognizing and controlling your own hatred and biases. So, don’t whine.
Ann make a lot of money entertaining the folks, do you?
And, what do you get paid in, Dave? Raw fish or kibble?
You are absolutely correct that the only finding of fact was by Greer. Fortunately he was correct in his assessment.
Yes, I am right. That Greer was the one finder of fact is a fact, not an opinion. That he was correct in his finding, however, is your uneducated, ego based opinion.
Only I thought the LAW was CLEAR and the PRESIDENT acted CRIMINALLY.
Once married, the SPOUSE is the next of kin. The parents are BARRED from superseding that RIGHT.