Posted on 03/29/2005 8:58:34 AM PST by Long Cut
I think you file an arrest warrant immediately.
I hope that was sarcasm.
hehe
The Texas legislature is meeting now, and there's nothing on the radar as to that legislation. And the leg only meets every two years.
Taking action against judges is misguided when the law on the books stays in place.
I thought I had copyright on that statement.
It's a fool's errand to speculate on what Ronald Reagan would have done in this situation.
This is the same president who, when confronted with the terrorist murder of 243 Marines in Lebanon in 1983, turned tail and ran.
PLEASE!
I ask the same thing Jim Rob. Please.
RB
*****************
Agreed. There are many who believe this is merely a legal issue. In my opinion, they have missed the most significan aspect of the Schiavo case. What was done to Terri was morally wrong.
It was morally wrong, but perfectly legal. All the moral objections in the world won't change anything, unless you change the law.
HELLO! It was a death case.
No such thing. It was a civil case where the judge was asked to determine whether or not the legal guardian was acting properly.
Like your tag line. Definitely fits this whole situation and discussion.
Thanks. Dirtboy was describing the attitude of the big-government "conservatives" who seemed to have come out of the woodwork lately. He really hit it on the head with that one.
;-)
"Florida law states that a judge can not act as a guardian of someone who's case they are deciding. Judge Greer did this, which was a violation of that Florida statue."
Wrong. Judge Greer acted as a surrogate, not a guardian. Any Judge who must make a decision as to what an incapacitated individual would want themselves has to act as a surrogate. This situation was reveiwed by the District Court of Appeal and was not found to be an improper function of the Court.
"Florida law states that a guardian must final an annual plan, detailing both the financial and care proved the ward. MS did not do this, which was a violation of that Florida statue."
Perhaps at best a technical violation of an overly strict interpretation of the statute. It should be kept in mind that the situation was in almost perpetual flux as a result of the constant litigation. The issues being adjudicated directly impinged upon those items that would be included in any annual plan. Being that the guardian applied to the Court for a determination of factors that would directly affect any plan the guardian might posit to the Court, it would have to have been difficult if not outright impossible to propagate any realistic plan. The Court certainly was aware of the contemporaneous situation of the ward and was able to supervise and approve of any actions of the guardian.
No harm- no foul.
"Greer has allowed Michael to unlawfully place Terri in a Hospice and engage in a Medicare and Medicaid fraud. She is not terminal and the "certification" presented was not done lawfully.
Greer "allowed" Michael Schiavo to place his wife in a hospice because her doctor(s) recommended and approved the placement. The certification was indeed lawful. Even if you are asserting that the certifying doctor didn't sign the paperwork, I would remind you that many times a doctor does not sign a prescription that is filled either. As in the case of a prescription, the doctor "called in" his certification to the Hospice. Michael Schiavo could not admit her pursuant to his own wishes.
Terri Schiavo didn't die within the allotted six month time frame as dictated in the Medicare and Medicaid hospice requirements, however that is not the fault of either the doctor's or Michael Schiavo. It is the result of protracted litigation on the part of the Schindlers. That notwithstanding there are thousands of cases each year that the patient expected to expire within six months survives longer than the Medicare/Medicaid time constraint.
I would keep in mind that there is nothing shy about the Social Security Administration when it comes to prosecuting fraud cases. The fact that there have been no charges forthcoming speaks volumes in this matter.
"Greer took campaign contributions from MS's lawyers. In most courts I know of, this is an almost instant and immediate reason for a judge recusing himself from those attorney's cases. Greer did not do this, refusing five requests for his recusal."
Judge Greer did not accept campaign contributions from "MS's" lawyers, a campaign committee did. That committee held the funds and also supervised the use and disbursement of those funds. They also reported the contributions and who made them to the election commission. This is entirely legal under Florida Law and is not grounds for recusal. This is the same situation which exists in most if not all of the various states, including very likely your own state.
FDR, the new ideal
But then I would have to give the post #4524 the credit for that one./s
Well, your beginning of this sentence with "of course" does not make it true. There was a trial.
There was a trial. There were subsequent evidentiary hearings. There were appeals upon appeals, including one where the appellate court did a de novo review it did not have to do.
No guardianship case has ever received the degree of due process and attention from the courts that this one received. To say there was no trial is, simply stated, a falsehood.
I'm still having a problem with the answer to my post #4426. This worries me more than any of the other statements.
For Federal officials, who have not heard and deliberated the facts of an individual state case, to send in the marshalls because they "believe" the court made the wrong decision is about as far from conservative Madisonian government as one can imagine.
But, then again, there are posters on another thread calling Dick Cheney's conservatism into question because he doesn't agree that all the judges should be on the business end of a rope.
If this is where the bus is going, I'd rather walk.
Their rules require that the WPPPPFFFFT! members shall not respond to your post, as that would simply be feeding another troll or disrupter. So hypocritical of those seeking *enlightenment*...I have found the lot of 'em small-minded and bigoted.
I wish you'd nuke 'em, but it's not my site. I've repeatedly encouraged them to start their own site - the idea being that maybe then they'd realize not only how tough it is to establish something great, but also to illustrate exactly the kinds of people on the political spectrum who would be attracted to their groupthink. Chirp, chirp chirp. Alas, nobody took my advice....yet.
They are doing nothing to advance the goals of FR.
I've had that thought as well. I don't usually have that much time to post anyway. And I've tried to point out that this is a slippery slope that can slide either way.
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.