Posted on 03/25/2005 7:41:58 AM PST by carolinacrazy
A majority of freepers are incredibly upset at activist judges attempting to legislate from the bench. I share these feelings. But in the Schiavo case, did these judges go against any existing laws, or did they do their jobs while being contrained by the actual law? Is it the opinion of many here that activist judges are ok if the outcome is what you want? Maybe we need some new laws established and the judges actually had their hands tied on this one. Please let me know your opinion.
It really is an honest question. The same logic which allows for dehumanizing the unborn, so they may be killed without remorse, also allows the dehumanizing the mentally disabled, so they may be killed without remorse. I am interested in how anyone can be against abortion, and for killing the mentally disabled.
No personal feelings involved in asking about the Florida laws in question. Another poster has provided the information I was interested.
From the Florida law I've glanced at, it seems MS simply took advantage of the law to override Terri's parents and have Terri killed. Another poster stated that MS's lawyer had a provision added to Florida state law to specifically include food and water as part of the definition of artifical life support.
From Amazon. The Banality of Evil......
Far from being evil incarnate, as the prosecution painted Eichmann, Arendt maintains that he was an average man, a petty bureaucrat interested only in furthering his career, and the evil he did came from the seductive power of the totalitarian state and an unthinking adherence to the cause. Indeed, Eichmann's only defense during the trial was "I was just following orders." (Much like Greer, and the Law)
Arendt's analysis of the seductive nature of evil is a disturbing one. We would like to think that anyone who would perpetrate such horror on the world is different from us, and that such atrocities are rarities in our world. But the history of groups such as the Jews, Kurds, Bosnians, and Native Americans, to name but a few, seems to suggest that such evil is all too commonplace. In revealing Eichmann as the pedestrian little man that he was, Arendt shows us that the veneer of civilization is a thin one indeed. ***********end excerpt************
Evil is always something to be worked up about.
That is not to say that what is happeing here is definitively Evil. However, Greer knew that this would be a highly controversial event, and never ordered any extensive testing, or recently informed medical opinions, because the written law didnt require him to.
Blind Adherence to the law, without conscience or discretion is what led Eichmann to the Gallows.
Are you saying I am for killing the mentally disabled? Have you read anything where I said this entire situation was right and I supported it? If so, then you are no better than a Clinton.
It baffles me why manner in which Terri's been warehoused in hospice isn't considered neglect.
Did you know the parents tried to take care of her initially, only later to have her placed in Hospice?
Terrible.
Give me examples of how it's hearsay, or laws not applicable. You're saying that FL guardianship laws don't apply to a guardian in the state of FL?
So you are against abortion and against killing Terri?
So if Terri truly is unaware, this has nothing to do with her in MS's eyes, this is just a son in law from hell dissin his inlaws. MS is just cruel.
I think every court decision since that point has been correct. The judges are strictly construing the law.
I thought Terri's Law, which allowed Jeb to intervene (which he did), was unconstitutional. It turned out to be so.
When I saw what the incompetent attorneys for the Schindlers filed in Federal Court on Monday, I knew that it would fail unless the judge was an activist who would rule outside the law and the pleadings.
I wish for the sake of everyone involved that a complete new testing of Terri had taken place prior to the tube being removed, but the judges are getting unfairly bashed on this forum.
http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/al-arian/Opinions/Schiavo-v-Schiavo-2ndOrderDenyingTRO.pdf
I thought his 14th Amendment argument was particularly weak.
His 8th Amendment argument is even worse: he argues that starvation is not cruel and unusual punishment because Mrs. Schiavo hasn't been convicted of a crime.
That's completely daft: by that logic, if a convict complained that he was being not fed by the prison, the warden could argue that the prisoner was not being punished because the lack of food was unrelated to the prisoner's sentence, but due to some other reason, and it would be not be "cruel and unusual punishment" since it wasn't part of the sentence.
Judge Whittimore also states on page 4 of this tripe that Mr. Schiavo is not acting under color of state law. Then what is he acting under? The color of the law of Holland?
No, Judge Greer went against any number of laws, including the Floria law that states a guardian should be removed for having a conflict of interest. Also, guardians are supposed to file a care plan on a regular basis. Schiavo did not do that, yet Greer never took action. This was meant to be a presidence-setting case, because this has never been allowed in Florida by law.
See Above. Thats what Eichmann said.
Judges are supposed to have discretion, especially as to finding facts. Greer should have, and so should Whittemore. Thats not Activism. Congress intent on passing that law was crystalf*ngclear. Whittemore, and Greer are both circumventing that.
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.