Replies

I agree with your comment on this but up to a point. The legislature had NO RIGHT whatsoever to step in and over ride a courts decision that had been in the courts over a period of 10 years and passed by 15+ judges desks. Let me tell you why.

Evidence had been provided in court over and over again about this womans wishes to have a living will by word of mouth. Now I know many in here have said that the husband has ill intentions but don't you all think that that evidence made it to court and judges weighed that evidence? Apparently it had no weight. What right does the legislature have to step in and go against oa court ruling and someones RIGHT and personal wishes to die if in a vegetative state with very little brain activity? This is an overstepping of power and an infringement on someones rights. The ONLY people that know what Terri's wishes were are her, her husband, and her maker. Florida LAW states that if said person is unable to render such a decision, as is the case with Terri, then her CUSTODIAN (her husband) has the right to render such decision. This is LAW people plain and simple. Now if you want to change the laws there is a process for this but that process is not to override a decision that has spent its course thru the courts.

Remember people this same thing happened during the Florida election fiasco and conservatives were yelling high and low that you do not change the rules once the verdict has been rendered and the law on the books after the game is played.

Why the hypocricy now?
15+ judges
10 years
Same law
Same verdict
Emotional hijacking over ones wishes
It is this simple.

Well, if you're going to make this argument based in "Florida LAW," then it seems perfectly appropriate that the Florida Legislature has a perfect right to change "Florida LAW" when it sees fit to do so.

The idea that justice can be codified and thus provide absolute justice, impatrially and fairly, was first written about by Aristotle, who claimed that such absolute justice was the goal of good government.

The core premise was that laws should be written to fairly and impartially cover all situations. This is what seems to be the basis of the pgrase "absolute justice" in the context of this thread and your post.

However, it was noted by that same Greek, that alas the city had grown to such a size (some 40,000+ people) as to make that impossible. He therefore said that judges and human judgement, would have to be relied upon.

To assume that the state can be codified to anything approaching perfection or even all situations is to start down the same slippery slope trod by the totalitarian states throughout history.

That is why we have juries, Grand Juries, and legislatures - not just courts.

Florida LAW states that if said person is unable to render such a decision, as is the case with Terri, then her CUSTODIAN (her husband) has the right to render such decision.

Uh, the word is GUARDIAN, not 'custodian'. A custodian takes care of PROPERTY. A guardian is a person assigned by a court to take care of another PERSON.

This is LAW people plain and simple.

Before bowing to your interpretation about what constitutes LAW, let me ask you this;

"Which is lawful, to do good or to do evil; to save life or to kill?"

Answer it. What do you think the purpose of law is in the first place? What aspect of "inalienable" as descriptive of the Right to Life don't you understand?

Cordially,

If I were sure that Terri had said she wanted to die, then I would deplore her decision and say it was wrong, but I would not deny her legal right to do so.

But there are several problems in this case. Most important, we have only the husband's word that she wanted to die, and he is not necessarily to be trusted. Second, there's a big difference between being taken off life support and being starved to death. Most doctors would make a distinction.

Another problem is that the abortion issue looms behind this case. The right to day is tied into the right to abort, and liberal judges are VERY reluctant to give an inch on these issues.

Finally, you say that the legislature has no right to go against the courts. That's just not true. The constitution--state and federal--has a balance of powers. Activist judges in recent years have overstepped the bounds, but that doesn't mean that executives and legislatures no longer have any constitutional rights to change or to execute the law as they think best.

"The ONLY people that know what Terri's wishes were are her, husband, and her maker."

Correct! And her husband may not be completely truthful about his knowledge in this matter.
So if Terri didn't say that, or did say it and changed her mind, than her husband would be mistaken about her wishes.

So that leaves the will of her Maker. And the will of her Maker supersedes the laws of man. You speak of laws, and hypocrisy. Terri's life is in the hand of her Maker. And since He has chosen not to take her life at this time so she lives.In other words, if either a judge OR her husband want her dead before her time to die, that constitutes MURDER.

Which law is that again which gives a judge(a fallible man) the right to take the life of another human being? Without cause? Because one other person is done with her? Who may have other motives to lie? And he is the only reason it is even in a court of law? Even though she has a family who wants to care for her? When she's committed no crime?

Speaking of murder, even a murderer is not sentenced to die by the order of a judge without due process. Even then, years of appeals must be exhausted before the sentence is carried out. Terri hasn't even committed any crime. This matter is only before a judge because her husband's attorney placed it there. And you talk about hypocrisy. Nothing personal, but your logic has no locic.

I have responded to you on other threads to refute your assertion that this has been heard by 15 or so judges. It has not. Although the case may have gone before a number of various judges these judges refused to hear the case for because of jurisdictional problems and such. This case has not, I repeat NOT, been heard by 15 or more judges.

Evidence had been provided in court over and over again about this womans wishes to have a living will by word of mouth.

Hearsay evidence from the husband, his brother, and sister-in-law was about it. With the family in disagreement it was the judge's discretion to decide and he went with the guardian's word. Rubberstamping a guardian's decision is routine in many courts and not necessarily an indication of any deep soul-searching on the part of the judge in weighing the "evidence".

Many people think it's not the best law which allows a guardian to take the life of his ward and benefit handsomely if he does take that life.

It's true that working through channels to change bad laws is ideal but in this case a woman's life hung in the balance. There will be plenty of time to hammer out better laws in the legislature but Terri was running out of time. Better to err on the side of her life and in the meantime the public can become part of the legislative deliberation on how to improve the law.

This reminds me of the gospel where the question was raised if it were lawful to rescue an ox from a pit on the Sabbath. Christ indicated it was better to err on the side of life over the law. That seems like a good guideline here.