Posted on 03/18/2005 12:19:15 PM PST by 1stFreedom
That is not the public. It is perhaps in public, a different use of the term, but they are private citizens. The public agency is the State.
The UN court is a false court - FLorida Court is based on State Sovreignty.
How cute. I can only read what you write and it is obvious that this is what your words ment.
> The husband IN fact and IN law.
You're 50% right. Yes, he is the husband "IN law", and won't consent to a divorce. The facts HINO freely admits to are that he has been living in open adultery with Jodi Centonze for about 10 years, has fathered at least Jodi's two children while legally married to Terri. Thus, no "IN fact" marriage has existed since at least when he and Jodi began living together.
> The husband carrying out the iwshes of his wife who dies 7 or 8 years ago but the body remeained artificialy alive.
Terri still breathes (unassisted) and survives, so legally, she is still his lawful wife and HINO cannot remarry while she lives. HINO's claim notwithstanding that Terri is brain dead, and wished to die in this hideous manner, Greer ruled affirmatively for HINO based solely on HINO's/only HINO relatives hearsay testimony. Greer has consistently demonstrated unbelievable bias for Michael's claims and ruled prejudicially and detrimentally against Terri's due process and other U.S. Constitution and State of Florida rights.
Your belief that non-terminally ill Terri wants to die a miserably painful death by starvation cannot be proved by solid written facts. Nor can my position. But, given that Terri has survived a number of life-threatening illnesses (for which HINO ordered that antibiotics be withheld) and two prior starvation episodes, she seems to have a strong will to live.
Absent written wishes expressing a desire to forego any life-sustaining procedures, I'll stand on the side of an individual's right to live. Terri's situation is not the so-called "right to die". This is a forced to die situation and thus a judicially ordered execution.
and won't consent to a divorce- mind your business.
> CAT scans show the cerebral cortex has shriveled away.
From http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp
Per Dr. Peter Morin, a Boston University M.D., biochemistry Ph.D. and degenerative brain diseases researcher, “A CT scan is like a blurry photograph.” and "a CT scan ... 'only gives you a tenth of the information an MRI does.'" Dr. William Bell, a professor of neurology at Wake Forest University Medical School, agrees: “A CT scan doesn’t give much detail."
> The court review found no such evidence
Your near total reliance on and approbation of Greer's biased decisions is pretty revealing. Your pronouncements are obviously made without any legitimate research for factual proof. In other words, you continually prove that you're pretty uninformed.
IMHO, you're a frigging TROLL. However, you do serve one legitimate purpose -- presentation of fact-based information for Terri supporters. Maybe you're learning something. Or, if you don't like them apples, doubtless there are other forums and threads where you'd find kindred opinions expressed and be welcomed rather than be tolerated, or shunned in the terrischiavo forums.
(Don't let the door hit you you know where!!)
I'm Catholic too and am only citing Cromwell from the historical standpoint of having to deal with activist judges.
Viewing Videotape, Frist Disputes Fla. Doctors' Diagnosis of Schiavo
I am not a doctor, but I think that Frist viewing an hour long video tape does not make him qualified to make a diagnosis one way or ther other.
That is a gross misuse of the National Guard. BAD idea.
"How they can sleep at night is beyond me."
Ghouls don't sleep at night.
If, as you say, you are not a doctor, and Senator Frist undisputably is, what happens to inform your view more than his?
There does seem to be a lot of evidence that she may not be in a vegetative state, and that her husband may not have her best interests at heart.
Why then has every appeal been denied, all the way to the Supreme Court? Either Michael Schiavo has a good case, or Terri's parents lawyers are not very good.
Preservation of institutional power goes to the heart of this type of thing. If cases are deemed to have been decided wrongly the institution is perceived on the outside as one prone to second guessing itself. So the institutional preservation instict takes over where effecting justice becomes secondary.
The institution in many cases gives these jurist's life tenure. If their judgements start to appear generally whimsical and unfounded in common sense and justice, and that comes from the judicial branch vacillating in rulings from one court to the next, that institution will likely undergo change, which the jurists will find unwelcome. That may even involve both institutional loss of job tenure with a congressionally mandated restructure of the court system. Hence they circle their wagons around their institution to protect their tenure and their jobs, and with it their credibility as a ruling institution.
Objective jurisprudence in the end has little to do with the outcome judicial rulings.
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.