Posted on 01/11/2005 6:18:33 PM PST by malakhi
| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
After a nine month hiatus, The Neverending Story, the granddaddy of daily threads, has returned to Free Republic. Originally begun on March 24, 2001, as a religious discussion thread, the NES evolved over time into a daily thread spanning a wide variety of topics. The new and improved Neverending Story will feature conversation on religion, politics, culture, current events, business, sports, family, hobbies, general fellowship and more. We welcome you to hang your hat in our little corner of FR. We ask you to abide by the FR posting rules and, even in the midst of serious debate, to keep the discussion friendly and respectful. Those who wish to "duke it out" are asked to take it over to the Smoky Backroom. I placed this thread in "General/Chat" for a reason, so play nice and have fun! :o)
What side did you land on in the Terry threads?
BigMack
Oh, I'm an Evil Satanist Death-Cultist because I've dared to criticize some of the more over-the-top, hysterical nonsense that has been posted.
In reality, my position is that, absent a specific written directive, the assumption should be that the person wishes to receive medical care. I don't think a feeding tube should be pulled based solely on verbal testimony. However, I also recognize that what happened is perfectly legal under Florida law. The problem lies with the legislature, and the solution is to lean on them to change the law. The judges followed the law, and are getting blamed for doing so. The irony is that the Schindlers were asking the courts to engage in precisely the kind of judicial activism that people around here supposedly decry. I saw posts lambasting Judge Birch from the 11th Circuit, and this guy is one of the most socially conservative judges on the federal bench.
there has been way way way too much hysteria and repeating of rumors and proven falsehoods.
Then the law is a ass.
You are right that there is a twist of fate in the people looking for "judicial activism." I believe there is a reason we have human judges and not robotic dispensing of "justice" according to algorithms laid out by a legislature. That is to allow judicial discretion, which I find lacking here.
There is a danger when judges ignore the law, or create it on their own. But there is an equal danger when judges become little more than machines.
As for the Federal justices, they clearly disregarded the intentions of the Congress and Presidet in refusing a de novo hearing of the facts of this case. That is inexcusable. There is no question what Congress intended.
SD
Yes, and the law should be changed.
There is no question what Congress intended.
I've read opinions on this from lawyers with differing views on what the legislation Congress passed mandated, vs. what it permitted. Considering that the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, I have to assume that, in fact, the Federal Court did comply with the terms of the law.
I agree, but thats how it always happens on something like this, comes with the human condition. :)
I believe more then anything that the main players in this are associated with the culture of death, they have been pushing an agenda and have managed to work within the bad laws of FL to achieve their goal. They had their victory, but that don't make it right or justifiable in any way.
We are only as good as our world view.
Like Dave said in this case the law is an ass.
BigMack
Thats the story that sounds good and we all should hope its true, but all too often the real workings or goals of the court system come way short of that.
IOWs I don't trust any of the cockroaches. :)
BigMack
Yes. But there was no doubt that the Congress and President intended the Courts to exercise this new power in this case. Even if it was permitted and not mandated.
So it's not a breech of fidelity to the letter of the law, but it's definitely a big middle finger to the other two branches.
SD
Yep. Legally correct, but morally repugnant. The law needs to be changed.
SD
There is existing law pertaining to the issuance of temporary injunctive relief, and standards that have to be met for such issuance. In the original draft of the Terri bill, Congress originally had language mandating temporary injunctive relief. This was later changed to allowing for temporary relief. Then, before the bill was passed, that paragraph was stripped out entirely. In debate on the Senate floor, Frist was asked if this meant that existing law governing temporary injunctive relief applied. Frist answered that it did.
Whittemore ruled that the Schindler's request met three out of the four standards required for injunctive relief, but that it failed do demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. This was based upon an analysis of the arguments filed by the Schindler's attorneys with reference to existing statute and case law.
The three judge panel only addresses the question of whether or not the original judge abused his discretion. They found that he did not. The full 11th Circuit upheld this, and the Supreme Court declined to review it.
It is possible that the Schindler's attorneys botched their filing. Or, perhaps they just didn't have much to work with. But reading the rulings, there is no question that these were conservative judicial decisions.
One poster says EWTN has confirmed.
He has journeyed a long, hard road. May this good man rest in peace.
I don't suppose it will be very long now, but the media is jumping the gun.
SD
Perhaps it has already happened, but they're waiting until they are ready to make the official announcement.
God bless his soul.
That looks like it was posted before the retraction. As someone said on a different thread, it seems John Kerry is the new Vatican spokesman.
Or rather, the media should simply wait for the official announcement. Exercise some decorum.
SD
Decorum? Dave, this is the media we're talking about.
Some interesting information on the traditions involved.
I know.
Do you think President Bush can or will order flags at half-mast? I don't know what the protocol is. Can such be done for prominent heads of state?
SD
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.