In other words, THE MASS MURDERERS ON DEATH ROW, WHO HAVE THE RIGHT TODAY to have their cases reviewed in federal court before they are put to death, HAVE MORE RIGHTS TODAY THAN TERRI, who must die because a state court said so. And that is the way YOU, so-called "flaglady" want it. Sick. Cruel. Unjust. Wrong. Sinful. And that goes for what your "Froggie" friend wants too. Not to forget something called "org.whodat".
NOTHING EXPOSES YOU PEOPLE MORE THAN YOUR WANTING TERRI TO BE STARVED AND DEHYDRATED TO DEATH ON ORDER OF A STATE COURT ONLY, WHILE DEATHROW MURDERERS HAVE THE RIGHT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN FEDERAL COURTS BEFORE THEY ARE PUT TO DEATH QUICKLY BY LETHAL INJECTION IF THEIR SENTENCES ARE UPHELD.
YOU CAN IGNORE, CHANGE THE SUBJECT AND OBFUSCATE ALL YOU WANT. YOU HAVE REVEALED A SICK INJUSTICE AND CRUELTY BEYOND REASON AND IMAGINATION IN YOUR ZEAL TO STARVE AND DEHYDRATE TERRI SCHINDLER SCHIAVO TO DEATH.
PING to #60 and relevant, preceeding posts. Terri must be denied the same rights accorded to deathrow murderers, and she must be executed by starvation/dehydration, while they are executed by lethal injection. That is, according to these named posters.
You are so right. It seems that today the criminals,( and I might add, illegals), are given the benefits, while the all the rest of have NO RIGHTS.!!!It's time this changes, and NOW!
Get real, Rangerette, no one here "wants" this lady to starve to death... the family has had a long struggle with this - the laws are clear, the next of kin has been legallly made guardian, and has chosen the treatment he believes is best and is in keeping with his wife's wishes. There is no absolute contradictory evidence..the courts have ruled on this time and again...I personally would not have made the decision he did unless I was sure it was her choice - but he has - it's his legal right to do so - and those who can not accept this continue to fight a costly, futile legal battle that only prolongs the agony for the entire family.
The original thread was about the law that the federal government should step in to review - and in your minds, overturn, the state laws and rulings.. and that simply is not an appropriate role for the federal govenment.
In your example of the criminal, the state has condemned the person and there is federal oversight for that...but in this case the state has not sentenced her to death - the state is saying that her legal guardian has the right to make the medical desicions for her care that he feels is apporpriate and without any compelling evidence to override that choice - that treatment or lack thereof will be enacted.
You can name-call all you like, txrangerette, but thinking those of us who do not support the role of the federal government in state issues are blood-thirsty and sinful shows how your logic has been overtaken by your emotion!
I have yet to see a supporter of Michael R. Schiavo on this board who truly comprehends the crimes against humanity committed by that man and his euthanasia movement.