Augggghh, not every thought requires another vanity post!
Seems to be. Not my opinion though.
FR seems COMPLETELY overwhelmed by the Terri Cult.
Yet another thread is oh-so-helpful!
I think most of the judges did their jobs within the confines of the law. Judges can't have passions or personal opinions or they would not be impartial. That impartiality in a life and death situation like this appears cold and mean, but this appearance is the result of the necessary impartiality judges must posses when making decisions.
I do question some of the things that happened in Greer's courtroom, but once it went to the appellate level, no laws were broken and no precidents were set. The system functioned impartially and I don't think there was any legislating from the bench.
Here is what the judiciary has done in this case. I leave it up to you whether this is right or wrong.
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?
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.
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.
Give me your opinion, Crazy, and I'll give you mine.
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.
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.
The judge didn't take into account the prove of attempt of murder.
Maybe we need some new laws established and the judges actually had their hands tied on this one.
Hmm No they didn't have their hands tied and no they did not do their jobs and no we don't need even MORE laws. The judges are an evil bunch and embarassment. They bring disgrace to our country. All the erring on the side of death for a disabled and aware beautiful woman was flat out wrong. America the land that murders the mentally impaired. I'm disgusted.
Judge Greer breaks law to ensure death
Felos no stranger to medicare fraud - not about Greer but well worth the read.
The appellate and supremes had to decide whether Greer rendered a fair and legal decision when he ruled in favor of Michael Schiavo. But first, they had to conclude that Greer had NO conflict of interest as he rendered his decision. The appellate court missed an extreme conflict of interest since Greer accepted campaign contributions from at least five of Schiavo's lawyers (Ref: thread 'Terri Schiavo, Requiescat in Pacem' by John Armor)......
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.