Appeals court declines to remove judge in Schiavo case

Sarasota Herald Tribune ^ | December 10, 2003 | The Associated Press

[nicmarlo]

Off for the evening...getting tired here. Hope you both have a great evening! : )

[Ohioan from Florida]

Same here...thanks bunches!

[windchime]

The courts strike again.

[Wampus SC]

"I give up. It is becoming obvious the judicial systems wants this woman dead and even every effort Jeb Bush tries is thwarted. I don't understand, did Michael Schiavo make a deal with the devil or something?"

Forces of evil are very much involved in this. I feel it becoming more apparent all the time. Giving up means giving up to that. That's why I can't do it. Even if it gets to where there's no cause for optimism. Even if Terri's dead, I can't give up. It's more than her. This whole culture of death thing is interlocked with many other issues, and one at a time, they're all resolving into questions of good and evil. All the options aren't played out, and there are more beyond the judicial.

[msmagoo]

POLL STAT

http://www.wftv.com/news/2696590/detail.html

Do you agree with Michael Schiavo's lawyers that "Terri's Law" violates Florida's constitution?

Choice Votes Percentage of 6425 Votes

Yes	2532	39%
No	3792	59%

Let's keep that solid lead! vote NO

Gov. Jeb Bush's Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2003

Statement By:
GOVERNOR JEB BUSH
Ruling from Second District Court of Appeal

"My legal team is still reviewing the order issued by the Second District Court of Appeal today. It appears the court has determined that prejudging a case before evidence is presented is acceptable in Florida, which is the same error made by the trial court.

"In our criminal courts, defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. When evaluating constitutional challenges, the law is presumed constitutional until proven otherwise. In this case, however, the actions of the trial and appellate judges make it clear they presume just the opposite, that the law passed by elected lawmakers must be proven constitutional.

"A judge who demonstrated his or her presumption that a defendant was guilty until proven otherwise would be disqualified from ruling in that case. We believe the same principle holds true in constitutional challenges, regardless of issues involved.

"The implications of this case reach beyond the life and death of the young woman in this heart wrenching tragedy. The law ensures Floridians who cannot speak for themselves will have an independent, neutral representative to advocate for their interests and wishes. If we abandon the law, we accept a dangerous precedent with the power to erode the rights of self-determination of people with disabilities."

[nicmarlo]

It appears the court has determined that prejudging a case before evidence is presented is acceptable in Florida, which is the same error made by the trial court.

"In our criminal courts, defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. When evaluating constitutional challenges, the law is presumed constitutional until proven otherwise.

This second paragraph is absolute fact. How the DCA could have "missed" the GLARING EVIDENCE, that Baird STATED and WROTE that "Terri's Law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL" before Bush ever submitted ONE legal document, is beyond me!

[msmagoo]

Baird's big mistake was not hearing Bush's arguments before making that pronouncement. He totally bought into Felo's "right to privacy" argument without hearing the other side. The right to privacy is constitionally protected, but not in all cases. Bush believes that when someone's life is at stake, the evidence and the facts must meet a standard that leaves no question of consent or intent. Baird decided that the right to privacy is so strong, it allows murder based on conflicting hearsay, apparently.

[nicmarlo]

But it's much more than just that. In Florida (perhaps other states as well), there is the presumption, written in their laws/constitution, that when the Legislative Branch makes a new law, it is ALWAYS PRESUMED CONSTITUTIONAL, on its face, until PROVEN OTHERWISE. It is up to the one declaring the new law unconstitutional to PROVE their case. The "Burden of Proof" rests upon the attacker of the law.

This is why Bush brought up the "innocent until proven guilty" scenario.....it is up to the prosecutor, after a FAIR and IMPARTIAL hearing/trial, to PROVE that the accused is GUILTY, as charged. If the prosecutors, who "attack" the individuals cannot PROVE THEIR CASE to a JURY, beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused CANNOT be convicted as charged.

[phenn]

Makes babies with another woman whilst still married.

[windchime]

Still at 59% NO.

[Theodore R.]

It's more than her.

Yes, remember on Larry King that Michael R. Schiavo said that very point: "this is about more than Terri and me {sic}." The forces of death aim to win this no matter what, and they have "Republican" judges doing their bidding!

I think the Pinellas Co. Republican Party needs a head-to-toe scrubbing to remove it of its corrupt leaders.

[msmagoo]

It's up to 60% NO yee ha!

[Saundra Duffy]

Just voted. The "NO" vote is now at 60%. Thanks for letting us know about this.

[Saundra Duffy]

I love Governor Bush! If it weren't for him, Terri would be dead right now. Starved to death by that monster of a HINO and his evil twin.

[Theodore R.]

Baird's big mistake

Who is there to correct Baird's "big mistake"? It appears that the FL courts march in what Daschle used to call "lockstep" in referring to Republicans. There are no checks and balances in FL, and the governor will yet be overridden by the judiciary.