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.
People here keep using this specious term "threw out evidence" - the court DID NOT "throw out" that evidence - it received it, considered it, and found it to be less credible than the countervailing evidence. Since you didn't hear the testimony in court, you have no way of determining the soundness of that decision, or lack thereof.
That being said, my beef is also irrelevant, since the courts have the power to weigh the evidence and render judgement.
What in my post is "rumor?"
You are mistaken. The legal guardian has no rights vis-avis the ward. The state assumes those rights and grants authority to the legal guardian. The legal guardian must petition te court and receive authority to remove artificial life sustaining devices. The court is not supposed to grant that authority unless there is clear and convicing wvidence that is what the wards wishes were.
The power to remove the feeding tube has always been the courts and no one else's.
Thanks for the clarification.
What about Public Law 109-3
It specifically states that the feeding tube must be replaced.
Why are the courts refusing to OBEY THIS LAW.
The judge decision didn't follow many of the Florida Statutes.
I took your, "I do know that Terri's own lawyers, one of whom was appointed by Jeb, found no basis for the abuse allegations," as a reference to allegations of abuse by Michael. And assumed, incorrectly on reflection, that it was a reference to spousal abuse that preceded Terri's collapse.
At any rate, none of that is relevant to the beef I expressed, i.e., that I beleiev the court found incorrectly on the matter of Terri's wishes.
The judge didn't take into account the prove of attempt of murder.
Both pre- and post- collapse. The GAL appointed by Jeb found no merit to the allegations. It is in his report. It is not rumor.
Name one.
Assume that the bone scan shows evidence of "unexplained trauma" - we don't know that, unless you know, for example, that Terri was never in a car accident, never participated in athletics, never fell off a ladder, etc. - what proof can you assert that Michael caused the trauma? Don't give me "it must have been him" - no court would countenance that, nor should they. Tell me what proof you have that the Court didn't consider.
We're talking past each other regarding a matter that is irrelevant to my point. Good day.
Please quote where it says that.
I don't quite understand that post. Are you speaking of attempted murder? Where did you get this? Sean Hannity?
What Florida law gives the judge the right to order the death of a healthy person, not guilty of any crime, and hold those carrying out the order not guilty of murder? Anyone know?
Can you direct me t that reprt of the G.A.L. Having served a a Guardian Ad Litem to the court on numerous occassions, I find that highly unusual. G.A.L.s normally on report back to the court on the status of the ward and make no investigation as to other facts claimed.
Are you calling Terri healthy?
You almost understood my request. Do you happen to know under which Florida law Terri is being killed, and how those killing her are not held liable for murder?
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.