[msmagoo]

Can't Bush refile his motion for Baird to remove himself for bias if Baird's rulings seem overly protective of Felos and Greer? Bush has already expressed concern that there is a conflict of interest, and is well aware that Greer has skirted the issue of HINO's multiple children out of wedlock. Wesley J. Smith called Schiavo's new family the "bull elephant in the living room", that no one wants to acknowledge.

Of course that is relevent, as is the question of who has paid Terri's medical bills, or have they been paid, and if not, why not, and why is she in a hospice for "terminally ill" patients when she is not terminally ill, and why has the hospice been sued for maltreatment of patients, etc. etc.

Because this is a constitutional challenge, and the FL Supreme Court having ruled that parties to a constitutional challenge cannot waive an evidentiary hearing, because the record left is insufficient; Bush should be allowed to ascertain what the facts ARE in order to mount a well-crafted defense.

[Dante3]

I find Terri's case a true horror story: A husband who might have tried to kill her, who does his best to torment her yet he is designated as her guardian. The judges making decisions straight out of the Twilight Zone. Michael goes on to remove the feeding tubes of his parents, and the media gives a pass to his outrageous lies. And Felos, a character out of nightmares.

I read that Senator Lieberman supports Terri. I wish he would speak out more.

What is the Catholic Church doing? This case is full of religious discrimination. Has the Greek Orthodox Church to which Felos belongs, spoken out?

[nicmarlo]

Can't Bush refile his motion for Baird to remove himself for bias if Baird's rulings seem overly protective of Felos and Greer? Bush has already expressed concern that there is a conflict of interest, and is well aware that Greer has skirted the issue of HINO's multiple children out of wedlock. Wesley J. Smith called Schiavo's new family the "bull elephant in the living room", that no one wants to acknowledge.

Sorry, I think I overlooked your post....didn't mean to...I wasn't on much yesterday and got pinged quit a bit...just saw this now.

Answer to question: yes, I believe Bush would have every right to, once again, ask that Baird recuse himself in the future......he would wait until Baird has done yet another thing that is highly questionable as to Baird's "neutrality" on the issue of Consitutionality of Terri's Law. Baird will, IMHO, once again refuse to recuse himself.

Not to worry, however; each time Baird gives Bush more ammunition to put in his pockets, the more Bush has to fire against him in any appeal (and there will be an appeal, again, IMHO).....just pray that the judges to whom Bush appeals are convicted to do what is right and proper and JUDICIAL, and lawful.....because those to whom Bush appeals could deny the appeal to have Baird recused....."just because they can." You know too well how liberal judges can, and have ruled in the Florida Kangaroo Supreme Court in 2000.....