Posted on 03/29/2005 8:58:34 AM PST by Long Cut
I just wanted to compliment you all on a very informative and interesting, as well as civil, discussion. It just proves that it is possible. And it's what I think this thread is all about. Thanks.
Glad to have you here! I hope you like the thread.
Well, I got a little snippy. And for that I apologize. But it has been fun.
Ditto!
Yes, it was quite informative. The legal points are all legitemite topics of debate, though some got a little arcane for me. I, too appreciate the civility and reason on both sides. Malakhi , Hobbes1, and Atlaw have excellent points. Good show!
Well, I fear I am too late to need the thread's theraputic effects... but I am glad you made it ;~D
I've just got a really soft spot for American V-8's. Nothing runs or sounds like them, and I particularly like the "politically incorrect" aspect of something with the presence of an SS.
Plus, it's always fun to blast by those leftists driving Prius' and Echo's. They look daggers at me.
Happy to be amongst the "sane".
Who knows?
The madness of the mob/mass hysteria! Some people are incapable of disengaging from their emotions.
Oh, I support the military, being a vet myself.
I'm just trying to figure out why I should go out of my way to stand up for people on this forum, when I'll probably end up getting my teeth kicked in for a difference in opinion by them in the future?
Get back to me when you have an answer for that.
How about a 1966 Corvette? All original and only 38,00 miles. And if you think you get looks from leftists, imagine what an an old lady like me gets when I take it out.
If others, however, show that reasoned discussion can be more productive and less embarassing, it makes them look like, well, juveniles on a playground.
Plus, I think that there's a few, maybe four or five, who just enjoy doing it and "hi-fiving" each other later.
SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.
Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.
SEC. 3. RELIEF.
After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.
Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.
SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--(1) to assisting suicide, or
(2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.
SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.
Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.
SEC. 8. NO AFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.
Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self- Determination Act of 1990.
SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
It is the Sense of Congress that the 109th Congress should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care.
Afraid not. As you can see if you have read any legal documents, the Congress deliberately left Section 2 fluid enough to let the Judiciary cop out on a new hearing.
If the court had actually failed to meet the terms of the law don't you think Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas might have noticed?
Or are they overreaching liberal pond scum too?
So9
That's a lie.
You're going to have to point out anywhere I have disparaged anyone.
Well, that led to the "Knock it off" comment by the AM - my reply to THAT injustice resulted in my getting suspended...
No. I think absent POSITIVE action by the Executive Branch SCOTUS was not going to get involved. Beisdes which you are engaging in speculation on the Order of Miss Cleo to ask that question. You need at least 4 judges to agree to hear a case.
you must have missed my other comment, re: that is is possible that the Law was unconstituional on its face, and in refusing to hear it, SCOTUS was doing a Favor.
That also misconstrues the reality it took to get the bill passed quickly. The Congress(and their brief is on here) stated that the intention was for the plain reading to infer fairly that the woman be kept alive, and that the Fed Courts had authority under the All Writs Act to effect the keeping alive.
SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.
Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.
Thanks for the bill. I just don't see, however, how Congress gave any leeway to the District Court. All the "mays" go to the plaintiff and the direction to the courts contain the absolute "shall," including the requirement for a de novo determination. What am I missing that you're seeing in this section?
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.