Judge Whittemore places Schindler family and attorney in "Catch-22" position

world mag ^ | Matt French

[repinwi]

Judge Whittemore in court this afternoon requested of Schindler attorney David Gibbs a response to a brief by Schiavo attorney Felos questioning the constitutionality of legislation passed last night by U.S. Congress and signed by President Bush.

Acknowledging that Terri’s life hangs in the balance, Judge Whittemore said to Gibbs that he acknowledged the “catch-22” he was being placed in, but he would like Gibbs to respond to the Felos brief before giving his ruling. Whittemore offered U.S. attorney Zimmerman the opportunity to join Gibbs in defending the constitutionality of the congressional action, but refused to require the justice department to defend the legislation.

The "catch-22," of course, is that while Gibbs must respond quickly because of the threat of death Terri faces, he must develop a cogent argument. Making Gibbs's job harder yet, Whittemore indicated that he would rule in the absence of a response at some point anyway.

Gibbs's arguments for a “de novo” (brand new) review in accord with congressional legislation hinge upon Judge Whittemore first rejecting the Felos brief questioning the constitutionality of this morning's congressional action.

[GOP_Proud]

< Because he is a Clinton appointee. >

...and an a$$hole, it appears.

[nicmarlo]

thanks for posting repini; and for the ping, BG.

[HiTech RedNeck]

They could put a tube down her nose if they needed a quickie.

[ladyjane]

Anybody out there who still has respect for our system of justice?

[petitfour]

If I were Bill Clinton, I would be on the phone with this judge urging him to choose to help this woman and the people who love her.

[katnip]

Judge Whittemore refused to grant immediate injunctive relief and warned media and attorneys that he would file electronically without warning.

I'm not a lawyer so what does this mean? He's going to put his findings out on a website in the middle of the night with no warning? I'm confused.

[XR7]

[Types_with_Fist]

asking why Michael is so anxious to end the "unhappiness" of a woman who he says can't think and can't feel anything.

Also, if she can feel no pain and dying of starvation is as wonderful as he has described... why does Terri need morphine?

[AaronInCarolina]

Can someone tell me why this judge doesn't order the feeding tube reinserted as this is sorted out?

Or at least hydration and glucose through an IV which can be done almost instantly.

[CyberAnt]

Yes, it is interesting - but if they would write it in plain English it would be helpful.

However, when the left wants to confuse the public they use legalese primarily because THEY KNOW WE WON'T UNDERSTAND!!

Any Constitutional lawyer who can help us ..???

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Adversarial questioning is not necessarily bad. It forces the lawyer to put forth and defend his best arguments.

But overall it appears to be a sham.

[A6M3]

The Democratic party will now and forever be known as the party of death. Whenever the letter (d) appears next to a Democratic politicians name, it stands for death.

[Ethrane]

"I think he hasn't ordered the tube re-inserted because he's not going to rule in her favor. He knows that a feeding tube isn't something that can be constantly screwed in and out like a light bulb. Insertion is like a mini-operation, particularly if the receiving "hole" in the body is closing up as the hours tick away."

Actually, the feeding tube itself, or at least a nasogastric or orogastric feeding tube could be inserted in less than 5 minutes...medically, it's not a big deal.

My question is, since they are not feeding her via the feeding tube, are they offering her water and food orally? To not do so is criminal.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Well, I can't imagine Gibbs was blindsided by such a request, he knows he would be asked to back up a constitutionality argument, and he's had at least since the Senate passed the bill to know what it said.

May it be from God's mouth to Gibbs' keyboard.

[Fitzcarraldo]

"Here is your medical ethics homework assignment...the result of which will decide whether the patient whose name is place inside a sealed envelope will live or die...write a legal brief to the court summarizing the reasons why your client should continue to live...with each passing minute your client draws nearer to their last breath...no parties tonight I expect..."

[Williams]

The judge rather cleverly put the burden for delay back on the parents' attorney. Considering this legislation was passed about 12 hours before, requiring the attorney to brief the constitutionality while the TRO hangs in the balance is abusive. Plus the judge was saying he will rule eventually anyway, so don't get your brief in soon enough and here will be the ruling saying it is unconstitutional, in part because you never answered. But you suffered delay in the meantime anyway. And if you get a brief in within a few hours, you further delay the judge while he reads and dismisses the arguments in your new brief.

Can't say it enough, playing with time like this is inappropriate under the circumstances. If Terry is going to die, I almost wish it happens while this judge delays so that his insensitivity is displayed to all the world. i apologize for the thought, but he should have issued an order this morning, either way. He knows one side or another needs to appeal, and she's dying in the meantime.

[joesbucks]

This question is not designed to provoke argument, but rather your opinion which I frequently read on this forum. Our legal decisions are based on precidents (sp). What if all previous legal decisions in similar situations end up in a ruling against Teri. Would you at this point advocate judicial activism?

[miele man]

Saw a pix of the Judge today. He even resembles the Clintoon.

[oceanview]

if you have been reading these threads, there are alot of freepers (and they are not trolls) who think that this case should not be reviewed and she should be starved to death.

[repinwi]

Well, from reading through these threads I found this background on the judge (ala FR) and found his rulings very well thought out. Not that I am a fan of Clinton by no means.

Here, take a look see and tell me what you think. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1367580/posts

"Longtime colleagues describe Whittemore, 52, as thoughtful, fair and down-to-earth, not the least flamboyant.

"He is a highly, highly regarded judge," said Tampa lawyer John Fitzgibbons. "He is highly intelligent and has just an excellent judicious temperament. He will allow all sides to state their position, to have their say."

Whittemore, appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton in 1999, is not known to display any political leanings.

Fitzgibbons said those who have criticized previous rulings in the case will not have an easy time accusing Whittemore of bias.

"He will call it as he sees it. You could not ask for a better or fairer referee," the lawyer said. "Everyone will be treated very fairly. It's almost a shame that there are not cameras allowed in federal courts. It would be such an incredibly fair proceeding it would be good for the country to see."

One can only hope and pray that this is true.