Posted on 03/29/2005 8:58:34 AM PST by Long Cut
We, the Witness Protection Program For Freepers, aka the Wild Turkeys, aka the Coalition of the Sane, have through mutual discussion and rigourous thought, determined that:
1. The discussion threads regarding Terri Schiavo (hereafter referred to as "TS") have become too full of innuendo, rumormongering, hyperbole, hysteria, namecalling, paranoia, and general poor behavior to warrant participation.
2. Said threads have degenerated into "echo chambers", wherein the same, common thoughts are continually posted again and again, and the same old disreputable, unconfirmed and/or false urban myths are propagated.
3. Anyone who joins in said theads with alternative viewpoints to the most extreme posts are routinely driven away with slander, accusations, and vile namecalling.
4. No data or evidence contrary to the "prevailing opinions" are accepted, considered, or discussed; and in fact are rejected outright in most instances.
5. That the continued calls for armed insurrection, military or paramilitary involvement, impeachements of politicians and judges, and death threats are embarassing, stupid, shortsighted, doomed to failure, and contrary to most if not all conservative thought prior to this case, as well as damaging in the extreme to FR and the conservative movement as a whole.
6. That such emotional, hyperbolic, and propaganda-driven hysteria is in fact contrary to all conservatives USED to stand for.
7. That the holding up of swastika and other Nazi imagery towards the police and the Bushes, the use of children as political props, and the disruption of the peace at the Woodside Hospice can only reflect badly on conservatives in general, and should be discouraged.
8. That the pursuit of this issue to the exclusion of all others by the GOP has damaged, perhaps beyond repair, the pursuit of other important issues as well as the reputation of the GOP, FR, and conservatism.
The WPPFF is NOT of one mind as to the case of TS or its correct outcome. In fact, wide disagreement exists within our little group. However, we are united in our wish that reason and sanity be respected in the discussion, as well as the rights of all parties involved or participating. We wish to discuss this as adults and intellectuals, as conservatives and as FRiends, not as children screaming past each other on some playground of hysteria. We wish for facts and evidence to be provided, discussed reasonably, and considered fairly.
We reject all accusations of Naziism, "death cultism", or other slander as methods of debate. We reject the practice of "spamming" multiple threads, of posting unending vanities, and the posting of propaganda and calls for violence. We reject, in fact, all unseemly and childish behavior which has come to characterize this case on FR.
We DO invite others to come and reasonably discuss the issue. We have no problem with FReepers who wish to debate in a rational and fair manner, and with due respect for their fellow FReepers. We have NO problem with those whose views are formed by religion; however we reject "preaching" or "being beaten with a Bible" as legitemite debate tactics. Not all of us are Believers, and such tactics only cheapen the source.
If a FReeper finds this an acceptable meansd to discuss this and other issues, they are welcome to join in and participate. Those who find pleasure in attacks, flame-baiting, slander, stalking, and personal atacks will be ignored, and their egos will go unfed.
We assume this thread to be a zone of sanity in an overheated atmosphere. Thus, a general amnesty is in effect. If posters conduct themselves within the guidlines above, we will be happy to discuss and debate with you. If a poster wishes to apologize for past slips of the tongue, or for possible "over-the-top" statements to another, it will be graciously accepted, and your company welcome.
Please bring a sense of humor; we feel that too many have been taking themselves too seriously lately.
Let the discussion begin!
Signed,
The WPPFF, aka The Wild Turkeys, aka the Coalition of the Sane.
It was my pleasure!
see above. Dont want to post it twice.
And a completely unsubstantiated one, at that.
I thought for sure that would have been a Pat article.
Oh, I'm sure he'll chime in any time now with all his usual "intelligence".
Husband should have the right to decide for the wife. If the judge had taken guardianship away from MS and given it to her parents, and he didn't have another woman in his life, many of us would probably be screaming bloody murder at the court's interference with the way it ought to be.
Whittemore Upped the Ante, by arguing that the attorney should have argued the case, rather than support is request for a TRO.
Judge Wilson calling it.....
I now consider the first prong, whether Plaintiffs presented a substantial case on the merits. In the complaint, Plaintiffs claim that Theresa Schiavo’s Fourteenth
Amendment due process rights were violated in that she was not provided a fair and impartial trial, she was not given adequate procedural due process, and she was
not afforded equal protection of the laws. Further, Plaintiffs contend that Theresa Schiavo’s First Amendment freedom to exercise her religion has been burdened by
the state court’s order to remove the feeding tube. Plaintiffs also allege a violation
of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a).
The establishment of a “substantial likelihood for success on the merits” is a heavy burden, but not an insurmountable one. A movant need not establish that he can hit a home run, only that he can get on base, with a possibility of scoring later.
In fact, our circuit jurisprudence establishes that the movant need not establish a “probability” of success, taking all things into consideration. The merits of
Plaintiffs’ substantial claims warrant a more complete review. I do not mean to suggest that Plaintiffs will definitely prevail on the merits, but merely that she has
presented a sufficient case on the merits. She raises legal issues necessitating the grant of the preliminary injunction and should be afforded an opportunity to defend
the merits of her claims.
Adjudication on the merits is impossible if we do not grant the injunction.
Finally, I note that awarding an injunction is an equitable decision. We have broad powers to fashion a remedy in equity.
We are required to balance the equities, and when we do, we should find that the gravity of the irreparable injury
Theresa Schiavo would suffer could not weigh more heavily in Plaintiffs’ favor.
In contrast, there is little or no harm to be found in granting this motion for a temporary injunction and deciding the full merits of the dispute.
Thanks, Long Cut.
"Substantial likelihood of success" is the law. Any judge saying anything different is practicing judicial activism.
Sometimes, one must vote for the lesser of two weevils...
Thank you for this post, it was very well stated, and I hope people will think before attacking someone else because of a different viewpoint.
Ah, my mistake. It must have been the PET scan I saw on TV, and Dr Crandal said one was done, my bad. I'm not aware of the other scan being anywhere on the net. I apologize for my confusion. The other scan I've seen a couple times on TV had black and white color (like a bone X-ray). In that one, the damage appeared to be more severe than the CT scan indicates.
Her husband gained that authority through hearsay evidence, admitted seven years after her accident.
If her wish was to not be kept alive, why did he argue to the court that he needed money to rehabilitate her? Why only after her received the money and hooked up with a famous right-to-die lawyer did he suddenly remeber this all-important wish?
I understand you're comfortable with putting this woman to death based on this re-married man's word... but I can't begin to imagine why.
Exactly. Works both ways.
The Bible says, when you marry,
you leave your parents and cling to each other.
HOWEVER, I do know that being around someone like Terri does freak a lot of folks out (I have seen grown men run from the building). And it ain't because of love or caring. Or heartbreak or loss. It is much more primal..... someone like Terri is a reminder that we really don't have the control over our lives that we think we do. That we too could become totally helpless and at the mercy of others.
So, it's about us, its about how 'they' makes us feel in pointing out our potential fate.
erm,
and back to the questions,
6. No. (However, if I don't have one, and IF I marry again and he happens to be anything like before, please ignore ANYTHING he says...I can tell ya now, he'll be lyin').
He gained that authority by marrying her. That he subsequently committed adultery is not relevant as a legal matter to his legal authority to make medical decisions when she is incapacitated. I don't have to agree with his decision to accept that he had that right.
You'are not only disingenuous, you're dishonest. I never said nor implied that I was "comfortable with putting this woman to death," but if it makes you feel better to falsely accuse other people, have at it. It only demonstrates how pathetic you are.
Not completely unsubstantiated. I've read a number of posts here from people who've pull the plug on parents and grandparents... universally, they come down on the side of George Felos, the right-to-die lobby, and to a lesser extent, their pawn, Michael Schaivo.
I'd say it's more like an educated guess. But then, that's an opinion, too. And no, I don't have any forensic evidence to substantiate it.
Ok. Lets start with the Florida Court system...I am sure you remember a little thing Called Election 2000 right??????
In the last case that made it to SCOTUS, who was right, the SCOFLA majority, or Chief Justice Wells.
And that is my point.
Wilson looks at the case, and sees all four prongs met.
Whittemore, (who btw, used to serve with Greer...) looked at the showing,(Required) and then complained that it wasnt argued. (not required).
And in concert with the law passed by congress, as Judge Wilson points out, there can be no hearing as mandated BY THE LAW if the TRO is not granted. Or is Judge Wilson just wrong about what type of hearing is being appealed?
The Majority insists in its opinion, that not only did Congress NOT SPECIFICALLY mandate a De Novo hearing, but that Whittemore acually gave one.
Which would have been a shcok to the attorneys applying for a TRO to keep Terri alive so the hearing could be held.
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.