Posted on 03/28/2005 2:28:37 PM PST by BB62
Condemned prisoners have a better chance than Terri Schiavo.
Look at it this way - if TS were a condemned prisoner, and affidavits were received from multiple "sources", wouldn't the ACLU, the media, etc. be ALL OVER the matter?
TS doesn't have stool pigeons, fellow prisoners, or "sources" on her side - she has professionals of many stripes, who don't know each other, who have lost, or who are/were in danger of losing their livelihood for saying nothing more than the truth. What does a jail mate have to lose? NOTHING.
Yet, in this circumstance we have everyday people putting it on the line for nothing more than good conscience, and NOTHING is forthcoming from the usual suspects.
This will be part of the theme of my letters to GWB, Jeb Bush, Dennis Hastert, Bill Frist, and the GOP.
Suggestions for additional themes are welcome.
Why, oh why are the standards so different?
BB62
Convicted criminals may be pardoned. But innocent people may not be.
I posted this on previous thread:
IF Terri were connected to a murder as a suspect, then she might be saved - That is a sad situation.
Terri Schiavo is being killed, by a court, under a civil preponderance of the evidence standard.
The judge who weighed the evidence (wrongly) is then deferred to by the appellate courts under a clearly erroneous standard, which is very hard to meet.
In other words, it's easy to kill her, hard to overturn.
Judge Greer is a murderer.
Charges at the Nuremberg trial were brought against the legal system—judges, and officials of the German Ministry of Justice.
German Judge : "I never knew it would come to that."
American judge : "It came to that the first time you sentenced a man you knew to be innocent."
Although I believe that Judge Greer should be subject to a civil rights suit, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, I doubt that it will happen. He will not be criminally prosecuted as the courts will find that he merely applied the law.
I believe he is a murderer in the moral or biblical sense, not the legal sense, as his actions have been affirmed by the appellate courts.
I believe that M.S., Judge Greer and the others who murdered Terri Schiavo will be judged and punished for their actions, but not in a court of law.
By what authority can a judge forbid a person from receiving oral hydration?
If Greer's order had ordered a discontinuance of a feeding tube, and allowed Michael to allow or disallow oral hydration as he saw fit, that might be allowable legally. But as it's written, Greer's order would require that Michael bodily stop Terri if she tried to get up and give herself a drink. How can that possibly be legitimate?
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.