Posted on 10/21/2003 6:08:18 PM PDT by attagirl
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:03:17 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Terri Schiavo in shown in this undated photograph.
Manage alerts | What is this?
TALLAHASSEE, Florida (CNN) -- Florida Gov. Jeb Bush ordered a feeding tube reinserted into a brain-damaged woman Tuesday afternoon, less than two hours after the Legislature passed a bill allowing him to do so.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
The second best part of the article, after the most important--Terri is granted a reprieve!!!
If you were a man, I'd like to violate the separation of your right and left ears!
Keep praying and keep the faith!
isn't that the truth? But I've informed my personal , however small, sphere of influence--and the ripple effect continues
...in the mainstream press and media
and I understand from FR posts, that the vaunted (Rupert Murdoch owned, don't forget)FoxNews continually refers to Terri as "comotose"
(and hardly mentioned by that paragon of muckrakers...Matt Drudge
Well, don't forget--Matt Drudge has been featuring this lately, and he also stood up to the producers at FoxNews when they refused to let him show that picture of little Samuel Armas holding the surgeon's finger during the in utero operation which allowed him to be born months later, free of spinal bifida.
Matt Drudge is still a hero in my book. No one is perfect, but he is at the very least a sincere (therefore, humble) person.
"It violates the separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches," attorney Debbie Bushnell said.
Ms. Bushnell, your comment does not obtain; the matter is not of separation of powers. The matter is that the law in this country is made by the people petitioning their duly-elected representatives who sit in legislature, to make our laws.
That very lawful process by which we created our Constitution.
Through which instrument, we authorized the establishment of our government limited to only the powers enumerated in the Constitution, and within the government, the three primary branches at the national level are in a balance of power with the states' governments, such arrangement being then known as federalism, and which, your thinking is notorious for not respecting.
That we can throw out the whole judiciary, and you, upon the next convention of three fourths of the states' legislatures; which, probably is not going to happen anytime soon; but I mention it as a friendly reminder of where is the power in this country --- it does not come from judges nor from the judicial branch --- it comes from the sovereign power of the people, exercised through the lawful democratic-republican process as stated.
There's a good reason for that, to limit what you are attempting to do: Establish a government by judiciary and return the people to being subject to such "politics of the moment" which were the arbitrary and capricious whims of regents.
That being the cause of the American Revolution; something that you were obviously not taught in school, much to your loss, but do not make it ours, too.
We do not live in a country that is governed by the judiciary, contrary to the notion that you and various leftwing judges find in extremism to your liking, such as "emanations" from extra-Constitutional space.
We live in a country that is governed by the people, through the democratic-republican process respecting the rule of law.
The rule of law is not the rule by judges; though the Ameican Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") and all related nationalizing socialists (including your law professors) would have you think so, and of them, as the "living constitutional convention" ... when they are anything but.
No judge in this country has any authority upon which to decide what will be the balance of power.
The balance of power is decided by the people, lawfully, under the rule of law by which they establshed the Constitution and the government branches imprimis (means, in the first place).
The people have the power to hear your argument, above, not judges.
"Here are the facts that Mr. Schiavo has hidden in his statement:In addition, and again, Ms. Bushnell's argument on the balance of powers in government, has no standing in probate on this matter. A probate judge not only does not "reign supreme;" a probate judge has no authority to set aside the requirements for standing on this matter, in order to make casual comments rise to the level of an affirmative statement of intent.[snip]
"It was not until 1998, when Mr. Schiavo hired Mr. Felos, that Mr. Schiavo suddenly 'remembered' that Terri had made some vague remarks about not wanting to be sustained on anything 'artificial' if she became incapacitated.
"When he promised the malpractice jury back in 1993 that he would take care of Terri for the rest of his life, Mr. Schiavo said nothing to the jury about Terri not wanting to be sustained on anything 'artificial.'
[snip]
"Once upon a time, long ago ... " Terri Schiavo did not, in fact, make any affirmative statement of her intention to not "be kept alive that way" that can be backed up by substance that an honest probate court requires.
Indeed, in this case, only years later when the new attorney penetrated the mind of Michael Schiavo, did Mr. Felos find a "casual (allegedly)" mention of some conversation in passing that (allegedly) took place between husband and wife, he would have the judge believe.
The assumptions by the courts, that always, she must have had some kind of "living will" in that regard, have all been false. She, Terri Schiavo, had no living will. In addition, there was nothing but the word of her husband, available for supporting his late-term assertion, other than hearsay of his relatives.
Now, in the absence of information to the contrary, a probate judge might listen to what a Michael Schiavo has to say, but there most definitely has been a presence of information that contrasts against his claim.
Yet even then, in the event that he might make a claim, after her death, in regard to her estate , for example, he probably would prevail; but this is not an after death case where his word versus the parents' is being tested.
The trust that is before the court, is to confirm the interests of the people of the state and the people of the county, that the wishes of a citizen are respected on matters of his or her demise and issue; to protect the person and the body from, indeed, violation.
The laws require that we err on the side of life, to borrow a phrase from Freeper Jeff Head and keep it simple, and that we err on the side of what are believed to be the wishes of the person, in order to prevent violation.
When a body is on the way out of this world.
That, is not the case of Terri Schiavo. In fact, not only was she alive and not likely to pass on anytime soon, in spite of the rigor of neglect through which she has been tested by both the errant courts and questionable intentions of her husband, she is alive and there is much evidence of her recognizing her mother and enjoying her love ... that the courts willfully ignored.
Our political system takes a dim view of such abuses of power, especially the preventions of an American citizen enjoying their civil rights, under the color of law enforcement that is "court ordered." That happens to be a felony; it's a federal violation; judges are not immune.
Well, I think you know I was being sarcastic about a county probate judge "reigning supreme", but low marks to Jeb Bush for not daring to investigate whether something disordered and unsavory may have happened in that courtroom.
Low marks in his failure to act quickly. It was almost as if he and the state house were all covering their rears, meanwhile running out the clock on poor Terri.
But, praise God that the reprieve came before she died. We must pray in thanksgiving and supplication for Terri's well-being (also, the family).
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.