Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Florida Court Prohibits Terri's Parents From Joining "Terri's Law" Battle (ACLJ)
LifeNews.com ^ | November 4, 2003 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 11/04/2003 4:45:08 PM PST by nickcarraway

Pinellas Park, FL (LifeNews.com) -- A Florida state court on Tuesday disallowed Terri's parents from entering the legal battle over Terri's Law. They wanted to join attorneys for Governor Jeb Bush in defending the legislation that allowed Bush to ask doctors to reinsert the feeding tube that is allowing Terri to live.

Bob and Mary Schindler, Terri's parents, were represented in the request by attorneys from the American Center for Law and Justice, a pro-life law firm.

"We're very disappointed with the court's ruling," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. "It is clear that state law permits the parents to get directly involved in a case to defend a state law that is keeping their daughter alive. It is unfortunate that the court did not find that the parents have sufficient legal interest in defending the state's actions -- actions that provide the only barrier between Terri and death by starvation.

Sekulow indicated the Schindlers may appeal the decision.

"We are currently examining all legal options available -- including an appeal -- for our clients. We will do everything possible to ensure that the interests of Terri's parents are represented in this case," he said.

Sekulow said the ACLJ is considering several options including filing a motion with the court to reconsider its ruling denying the motion to intervene; filing an appeal with the Florida Second District Court of Appeal; or, representing the interests of Terri's parents with the filing of an amicus brief on the issue.

In court papers filed Monday, Michael's attorneys said the legal battle is between Michael and Governor Bush and that, while Terri's parents have an interest in her well-being, they should not be a party to the lawsuit.

Attorneys for Governor Jeb Bush are expected to file a response to Michael's "Terri's Law" lawsuit this week.

The American Civil Liberties Union is aiding Schiavo in the lawsuit against Terri's Law.

Pro-life attorney Tom Marzen, who monitors end-of-life issues, told LifeNews.com he agrees the Schindlers have a right to be involved.

"The Schindlers should be allowed to intervene since their interests are certainly affected by the outcome of the suit," Marzen explained.

Michael's lawsuit also seeks a removal of Terri's feeding tube for the third time. The Schindlers' petition asks the judge to allow them to be appointed Terri's guardian in place of Michael.

Related web sites:

Terri's family - http://www.terrisfight.org


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: aclj; aclu; civilrights; courts; florida; prolife; righttolife; terrischiavo; terrisciavo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 261-271 next last
To: FR_addict
I've been going through these threads and I still don't see an answer to your simple question.

I suspect we won't ever see an answer.

-------

Why should it matter to the other side if Terri lives or not? According to them she is a vegetable and does not have any brain function left. I want to know the answer to your question too. What harm is there in keeping her alive?

I agree, there is NO harm in allowing her to live. I will continue to ask the Kill Terri-ites that question until I get an answer or drive them crazy. They can't help but think about it when they read it. Maybe one of these times, one of them will say to themselves, "You know, I'm working for no gain here." And they really are putting forth all that effort for NOTHING. You see, if we win and Terri lives, we gain a victory for the right to life. If they win and she dies...NOTHING. Who's the real idiot?
121 posted on 11/04/2003 7:53:05 PM PST by gooleyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: gooleyman
the rule of law, and the rule of the family...
122 posted on 11/04/2003 7:58:09 PM PST by Legerdemain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Ethan_Allen
Thanks for reposting that. Perhaps that should be our next focus in emailing the courts, the legislators and of course, Gov. Bush.
123 posted on 11/04/2003 8:00:12 PM PST by sweetliberty ("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Deep_6
It was after-the-fact

The constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws only applies to criminal law (Calder v. Bull). So this objection does not apply.

and reversed a court's opinion

No it didn't. Rather, it offered a new avenue of action.

124 posted on 11/04/2003 8:01:20 PM PST by malakhi (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: supercat
There is a long history, going back over 200 years, of legislators deciding to effectively reverse court decisions by passing laws so as to undermine them. That a law undoes a court decision is hardly a basis for declaring it unconstitutional; indeed, the ability for the legislature and executive to join together to override the judiciary is one of the essential checks and balances in the republic.

Exactly.

125 posted on 11/04/2003 8:02:01 PM PST by malakhi (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Coral Snake
You are about ONE MORE personal attack on our religion away from the ABUSE BUTTON being used on you:

oh please, your godsquads have brought religion into the debate. I can say the same about you. Stop harassing my beliefs...naw that is ok, go ahead harass people who do not believe like you.

Grow up and if you can't take the heat.......

126 posted on 11/04/2003 8:03:35 PM PST by Legerdemain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: wisconsinconservative
Whose court is that going before? One of the players that are already in it up to thier necks? Will the Schindlers have the backing of the ACLJ attorneys and/or Family Research Council attoneys there? Have you heard?
127 posted on 11/04/2003 8:03:54 PM PST by sweetliberty ("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty
>Also, it was she, NOT his "wife," Terri, who was mentioned >as his "spouse" in his mother's obituary.

Just when I thought couldn't a bigger scumbag...

Michelle
128 posted on 11/04/2003 8:04:53 PM PST by sunryse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
and reversed a court's opinion

No it didn't. Rather, it offered a new avenue of action.

And, as noted, it's hardly uncommon for the legislature to decide it doesn't like a court decision and pass a law to undermine its basis. One very clear and unambiguous example was a Supreme Court decision late in the nineteenth century which ruled that piano rolls were mechanical devices rather than music, and thus that the producers of piano rolls were not required to seek permission from or pay royalties to the composers of music played by the rolls. The Supreme Court decision was right and proper given the copyright law in effect at the time, but within a year the copyright laws were changed so as to explicitly include mechanical music devices.

129 posted on 11/04/2003 8:04:59 PM PST by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty
>Also, it was she, NOT his "wife," Terri, who was mentioned >as his "spouse" in his mother's obituary.

Just when he thought couldn't a bigger scumbag...

Michelle
130 posted on 11/04/2003 8:05:06 PM PST by sunryse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: sunryse
Shouldn't type while holding a baby, LOL. Can't proof read as well.

Michelle
131 posted on 11/04/2003 8:06:31 PM PST by sunryse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: sunryse
Also, it was she, NOT his "wife," Terri, who was mentioned as his "spouse" in his mother's obituary.

Not spouse. Fiancée. Though I was wondering if the newspaper still has the files indicating who placed the obituary. If it was Michael, that would be damning indeed (if it was someone else, it would be hard to hold Michael accountable for what they wrote).

132 posted on 11/04/2003 8:07:20 PM PST by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: supercat
"but since it is that would seem to be an absolute slam-dunk against Michael's guardianship."

SEEM being the operative word here. It also seems like the laws are taken as mere suggestions by the self-appointed gods of the Florida courts, or as multiple choice, depending on which law best serves today's agenda.

133 posted on 11/04/2003 8:09:25 PM PST by sweetliberty ("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty
No, I don't know either which Judge will hear the guardianship matter. I asked futher up the thread but I haven't gotten a reply yet.

Right after I hit my knees and put in a good word for Terri and all those fighting for her, I'm heading to bed.

If you could be so kind, let me know if you do hear anything about the hearing tomorrow.

thanks, WC
134 posted on 11/04/2003 8:10:40 PM PST by wisconsinconservative ("...then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak out for me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Since the Schiavo suit is against Bush, the court ruling is correct. The Schindlers have no "standing" in the case. That doesn't mean I am against further action by the Schindlers to prevent Terri from being killed and to get her a thorough evaluation and medical treatment.
135 posted on 11/04/2003 8:13:29 PM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty
SEEM being the operative word here. It also seems like the laws are taken as mere suggestions by the self-appointed gods of the Florida courts, or as multiple choice, depending on which law best serves today's agenda.

Well, I'll admit I won't be surprised if Judge Greer decides that Michael and Jodi were engaged in sex purely for reproductive purposes, and as such their conduct is not lewd or lacivious. But I would hope the legislature would be prepared to commence impeachment if he so found.

136 posted on 11/04/2003 8:14:14 PM PST by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Looks like Michael Schiavo and his attorneys are still at it! Bah!
137 posted on 11/04/2003 8:15:57 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Are Florida judges appointed or elected?
138 posted on 11/04/2003 8:18:13 PM PST by 1L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Deep_6
Prove that Terri has no movement, that she cannot follow a balloon with her eyes, that she doesn't respond to her parents. HER OWN HUSBAND REFUSED THE CAMERAS OF LARRY KING TO PROVE SO. Wonder why? You should.
139 posted on 11/04/2003 8:23:01 PM PST by greccogirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: sunryse
I understand the whole giving to the husband thing, but does that mean the parents of a disabled person the state is trying to kill have no interest whatsoever?

no, the parents do not have a legal interest in this...when they were married, she turned 18, ect. they lost their legal rights. As it should be

140 posted on 11/04/2003 8:25:15 PM PST by Legerdemain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 261-271 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson