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.
Now, you may feel that the court was wrong. However, the decision was supported by competent evidence. The countervailing evidence was admitted, and it was addressed. Those who claim Terri wants to live received more "due process" than most get from the Courts, and the Courts responded to their various requests, appeals, etc. with dispatch. She had three different guardians appointed, all of whom found that Michael had provided Terri with quality care.
The disappointment / anger with the courts on this matter is rooted in the fact that the courts refused to make rulings based upon supposition, innuendo, and unfounded allegations.
For example, the whole wacky bone scan thing. Let's make a leap here - assume that the scan shows the alleged "unexplained trauma" (of course, no one here has made much of an effort to determine whether there are "explanations" - i.e. can you tell me that Terri was never in a car accident?) - tell me ONE SHRED of EVIDENCE that said trauma was inflicted by Michael. Spare me the "it must have been him" - the law doesn't countenance such. What EVIDENCE do you think could be presented to the Court on this issues?
Doesn't the word 'disabled' have a legal definition that doesn't apply here? Anyone?
That comment reflects a mistake. The legal guardian has a DUTY to carry out the patient's wishes. If the patient's wishes aren't known, a court finds the patient's wishes and charges the guardian with the duty.
Fair enough. Based on all the heardings the Schindler's lawyers haven't been able to disprove the husband's assertion that he knew her wishes. The buren of proof is on them I think. Again I was hoping they would find some legal way to reverse this but it doesn't look like there is one.
Does Greer have the authority to pardon those who are killing Terri? From a legal point of view, what prevents the county or state from prosecuting hospice workers for murdering Terri? And Mike and Greer for conspiracy to commit murder?
Sorry about all the idiotic typos in that last message.
That's the big point to me too. If I'm ever in court, I don't want things stacked against me because of how the judge personally feels on the matter. Have to make decisions based on the existing rules. It is sad that Terri's husband didn't give guardianship to her parents, but what if he really is going by her wishes? They were a very young couple who probably never thought about living wills - that's something retirees worry about more. It is possible that Terri doesn't want to be alive in this state. Greer did his job within the confines of the law. Everthing that Jeb and the FL legislature tried was band aid legislation at the last minute. If there was serious intenet to solve this issue, the legislature would have to have hear comments from all the people in FL, not just Terri's parents and their advocates. It is aweful, but the State of Florida is a t fault for the current rules that let this happen. It is a valid debate to discuss what role the State should play in these issues, but I don't want to worry about the government deciding for me, or reinterpreting my wishes on a spur of the moment decision.
However, this is a contested case, one side saying one thing, the other side saying the other, with a life in the balance. This is not unlike a capital murder case. A life will be taken based on the courts decision.
According to the US Constitution, no person shall be deprived of life without due process. Due process in capital cases involves a trial by a jury of one's peers. Terri has never received this due process. Her life, as guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be taken. If the courts allow the starvation to continue to it's inevitable end, they have not done their job. Nor have the legislators and the executive. All 3 branches have failed to perform their sworn duty.
The people at the hospice aren't doing anything currently illegal. If it's made illegal later they can't be charged for it. Ex post facto and all.
My beef with the courts is that I believe it failed to find Terri's wishes. I will concede, of course, all of the procedural steps you noted were in fact carried out. Interested people will look at the evidence before the court, and draw their own conclusion.
... the decision was supported by competent evidence. The countervailing evidence was admitted, and it was addressed.
Yes it was. And the outcome was the wrong one, in my opinion. At that is my beef. It has nothing to do with supposition, innuendo, and unfounded allegations, as you assert.
Nazi judges in Germany did their jobs by sending people, political dissenters, to concentration camps so they could be turned into soap or lamp shades. The judges were only up holding the law and "doing their job". The question is: was the law just? I think not. Just because a corrupt system claims a law is on the books doesn't not mean it has moral authority.
The justice system in our country is nearing the same level of corruption.
No. The judge ordered her feeding tube removed, pursuant to an application by her husband, after two trials wherein evidence was submitted, and if legally admissible, considered, and issues of credibility were determined. You may not agree with the result, but the judge did what judges are supposed to do.
So refusing food and water to Terri is not killing her? If a parent locks their kid in a closet for two weeks and refuses to feed them, and the kid dies, the parent is not guilty of murder? Am I missing something?
Give me your opinion, Crazy, and I'll give you mine.
I do know that Terri's own lawyers, one of whom was appointed by Jeb, found no basis for the abuse allegations. Terri's own lawyers practically begged the Schindlers to present medical testimony more credible than what they relied upon (one even wondered why the most qualified doc they hired [Webber, I think?], whose affidavit was used to actually get a new hearing, did not provide testimony at the hearing).
We also know that the Schindlers conceded FOR YEARS in the court process that Terri was PVS. That didn't change until some of the more questionable characters in these events got involved.
What is painfully obvious is that Judges should never be trusted to preserve human life. I think that you are in a sense correct about them having their hands tied, but only in an institutional sense. There is no reason why the federal judge in this case could not have given her a stay of execution and held a de novo hearing, as Congress ordered, with a complete medical evaluation to insure that Michael Shievo's claims were accurate with respect to her health and prospects for recovery, if any. He didn't do it because he didn't want to second guess the state court. There is something wrong when a court cannot take the time to be sure when the Congress of the United States and the President ask them to.
Exactly. One need only read the history of how the Roe V. Wade came about to realise that courts and judges are not the ultimate arbitors of moral authority, nor is every "law" just. Slavery was once permitted by law.
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.