Posted on 03/20/2005 6:06:29 PM PST by Former Military Chick
I believe in looking at both sides; and I don't think they're found on FR in any way, shape, or form.
As soon as any article that doesn't condmen him to hell is posted, people start trashing him and there is effectivly NO DISCUSSION.
If you dare to ask a question, you're called a murderer, or told to go back to DU (Yes, a million people have called me a troll and told me to get over to DU).
And if you are interested in the legal proceedings and ask questions about it, someone will come along and jump you and call you a euthansia lover.
I remember when conservatives use to be for the rule of law; I remember when conservatives use to be for the sanctity of marriage; I remember when conservatives use to be opposed to activist judges.
And I remember when people on FR could voice their opinions without being repeatedly drummed off threads; my Freepmail box is FULL of pages and pages of emails from people who are AFRAID to post on these threads to voice their opinions because of the vicousness of the attacks, just like I was on this very thread.
I am of the opinion that this is a BAD bill, if it gets past the USSC; it opens the door to anybody that you know butting into your life.
And I remember when conservatives thought the government should get out of our lives.
You'll have to forgive me for not answering your questions; I don't put much value in your posts or your opinions, you know, since you lied about me in your first post.
"Someone on a different thread pointed out this link: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html and I'm glad they did because it's the most unbiased look at the case I've seen"
You've GOT to be kidding me.
I have to say that in spite of the guy's protests at being uninterested and unbiased, that's one of the -most- biased representations of this case I've ever seen.
Look at his timeline! How in God's name does he jump from January 1993 to May, 1998, with only one entry (transferrence to a nursing home) in between? How the hell can he leave out THIS and purport to be objective!?
1993
Feb - Michael Schiavo denies recommended rehabilitation treatment.
Feb - Schiavo and Terri's parents have falling out regarding lack of therapy for Terri.
Feb - Schiavo withholds medical information from Terri's parents.
Feb - Schiavo posts Do not Resuscitate order in Terri's medical chart.
Jun - Schiavo threatens Schindler family with lawsuit.
Aug - Schiavo orders medical staff not to treat Terri for potentially fatal infection.
Sep - Bob and Mary Schindler petition courts to remove Schiavo as Terri's guardian.
Nov - Schiavo admits in deposition that he knew withholding treatment of infection could result in Terri's death.
I'm sorry, it's absurd to leave facts like that out of the equation, especially given that they immediately follow his being awarded large sums of cash which he promised to and was bound to use for her rehabilitation. Please, tell me that you can see that a claim to being objective is ludicrous in light of leaving facts like that out by casually skipping over five years of the timeline which just happens to be the most damaging to Schiavo's case!
Qwinn
In depriving Terri or food and water, she is condemned to die. Condemned murderers, like Scott Peterson, will have their death sentence reviewed in the courts. This bill provides that Terri also have her death sentence reviewed.
The 14th Amendment applies here:"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; now deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
First he stopped her treatments, when she was having them she was responding, but he told the hospice/nurses she was not to have any more therapy of any kind. So what does how long has she been this way have to do with it. He is the one that stopped it. The question is WHY???
But some doctors seem to think that she still has a chance. I believe that miracles are out there, just be patient. If she has fought this long over having her feeding tube removed a couple times now, then I think she should be given the chance. That's all. She is a living, breathing human being. She doesn't need a machine to help her breath, she does that on her own. Why all of a sudden if you are incapacitated you don't deserve to live??
I was in your position as well, and can smell STINK, like you can, a mile away. BIG STINK. Let's get to the TRUTH before KILLING a woman who is not even on life support.
WHY would that be so unreasonable to ANYONE who values life? What's the damn rush? Where's the damn FIRE?
For those that support the husband's postion in some form -- have you ever hiked in the desert in the summer? A couple of hours without water in 115 degree heat will give you an indication of what if feels like to begin the road to dehydration. Then, please keep going without fluids and the extreme temperature, experience what it feels like to deprive the body of fluids.
I don't care about legal positions, government positions, husband's positions, we're Americans and I thought we were to care for each other. You would not put an animal to death this way, you would not put a murderer to death this way, you would not put a terrorist to death this way. So let's get to the bottom line and all agree -- YOU CANNOT PUT TERRI TO DEATH THIS WAY!!!
What a sack of crap.
in terms of time ,at what point did he stop her treatments.?Im simply asking a question here.
Ah yes. The judiciary should always have the final say on U.S. policy..right? Once any judge decides anything...no matter how ludicrous, the legislative branch simply has no power to to put their 2 cents in the political forum....Wrong.
Here are a few thoughts from mark levin on this issue:
Some other posts today from Levin below that on the subject of Legislative vs. Judicial powers.
HERE WE ARE [K. J. Lopez] Cover for the feminist Left for not being a defender of the rights of Terri Schiavo: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0503190165mar19,1,6639786.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true)
Marc Spindelman, a visiting professor of law at Georgetown University who specializes in bioethics, said the message sent by the subpoenas is chilling.
"What's next? If Congress doesn't like it, are they going to subpoena individual women to testify before Congress in order to keep them from exercising their rights to an abortion?" he said. "What about individuals who want to terminate a respirator? Is Congress going to bring them in and start asking them questions? Who couldn't be dissuaded from exercising their constitutional rights in certain ways in the face of a federal subpoena? The spectacle of this--it's unbelievable."
***********
RE: RE: HERE WE ARE [Mark R. Levin] This is a typical slippery slope argument, applied only to Congress but not to the judiciary. I could ask, for instance: what next, will judges, on the word of a putative spouse, deny nutrition to alzheimer patients who, on their own, would surely die of starvation? And what of the standard of proof and evidence? There's nothing in writing here, no living will, no witnesses -- just heresay. Is that the standard judges will now use, and if they can use this standard on a matter of life and death, what about wills, trust, estates? Are they all to be decided now based on oral, unwitnessed representations?
***********
AND WHAT'S TO STOP CONGRESS FROM... [Mark R. Levin] And what's to stop Congress from calling women who might seek abortions? Well, what's to stop Congress from doing anything stupid or outrageous? We, the people. Even those who oppose abortion would likely react very negatively to such a spectacle. Congress has called witnessed who've had abortions who regret having had the procedure and others who've argued against prohibiting, for instance, partial birth abortion. This has been done without exploitation or abuse. But the question the critics of the House refuse to ask and answer is who or what can check a judiciary that, more and more, is making policy decisions? If not Congress, than no one. And in many cases, I expect that's perfectly fine by them.
***********
IT’S THE JUDGES, STUPID [Mark R. Levin] I see this more as a struggle between the elected branches and the judiciary. The Florida legislature and Governor Jeb Bush did, in fact, attempt to intervene in the Schiavo case a few years back, and prevent the removal of her feeding tube. But the Florida Supreme Court ruled, among other things, that the governor had no such power. Yesterday, Florida Superior Court Judge Greer, in essence, said the same about congressional authority. He quickly dismissed the relevance of the House subpoenas with this statement: "I have had no cogent reason why the committee should intervene." The state judge, therefore, contended that the House had to convince him of the legitimacy of its subpoena to compel witnesses to appear so it can conduct hearings. I've heard nothing from academia about this stunning judicial assertion.
As the courts continue to usurp the policy- and law-making power of the elected branches, and offend an ever-growing number of Americans and their representatives, we can expect the tension between the elected branches and the judiciary to grow. The judges have no one to blame but themselves. In the eyes of many, they have pursued a course that delegitimizes their institution and calls into question their motives. And while the courts set themselves up as the final arbiters of all conflicts between themselves and the other branches, at least the House, in this first test of constitutional wills, does not appear ready to surrender. After all, if it won't protect its own constitutional prerogatives, who will?
The more the House resists judicial usurpation, the more unhinged its critics in academia and the mainstream media will become -- accusing it of politicizing the independent judiciary, intimidating judges, and so forth. The reason for this is straightforward: the judiciary is the means by which the Left has been most successful in recent decades in imposing its agenda on society. They've gone to extraordinary lengths to obstruct President Bush's judicial nominations, including the unconstitutional use of filibusters in the Senate, and they will be equally zealous in the House.
***********
A ROLE FOR CONGRESS [Mark R. Levin] No one questions the power of Congress to issue subpoenas to pursue its core function, i.e., to conduct hearings and investigate issues where there might be a legislative purpose. And clearly, in this case, Congress is genuinely interested in taking up the issue of protecting disabled and incapacitated people. And Congress is certainly free to use the most widely known example of court-ordered starvation as a basis for its inquiry. If its purpose is also to save from starvation the person at the center of its inquiry, that's perfectly legitimate as well.
And when Congress issues subpoenas, they are to be honored by the recipients, or they face possible prosecution for contempt of Congress. Compliance with congressional subpoenas is every bit as critical to maintaining the rule of law under our constitutional system as is compliance with a court order. And a state trial judge is not free to blithely dismiss such congressional action, whether he agrees with it or not. He stands in the same shoes as others in this regard, i.e., he cannot take affirmative steps to contravene a congressional subpoena. Even if one wishes to descend into some kind of balancing test, the state trial judge could have easily prevented a constitutional confrontation by delaying his order until Congress could at least conduct hearings, thereby ensuring that the authority of both branches of government were not offended. Instead, the state trial judge did what too many judges do, i.e., he vetoed a decision or action by Congress. The mainstream media will ignore this aspect of what has occurred, as it already has, preferring to regurgitate the shrill accusations of academics and lawyers who worship before the bench. Posted at 10:53 AM
Yeah, I believe men who start dating 1.5 years after their gf has an accident.
Yeah, I believe men who get rich off the pain of others.
Yeah, I believe men who deny visitation rights for loved ones and micromanage every aspect of Terri's care.
/sarcasm
I have yet to encounter ONE rational argument in favor of starving this woman. Not from Felos, not from Michael Schiavo, not from Neil Boortz, not from anyone on Free Republic.
Excuse me for making the mistake of thinking you might be able to give me a rational response in relation to the principles at work here.
I guess I gave you too much credit.
Death threats are certainly beyond the bounds, but harrassing calls aren't.
If he doesn't want the calls, perhaps he should get his number unlisted...
Are you too thick to understand the words "I don't want to?"
He started dating a year after her accident.
Geez, lighten up.
That is some money he has made sure is off limits to try to make himself look better.
But, who knows what he has done with the settlement. It sure looks like he spent it on his nice big mansion.
He sure didn't get it from a nurse's salary.
Howlin,
I don't think any of those things about you, never have and never will. You are right you have a right to your opinion and you shouldn't take others thought to heart. The people on FR are just very passionate and maybe a little over zealous, but they mean well. We are starting to act like the librals and "eat our own". LOL
I don't ever want you to leave FR because you are very intelligent with many of you views.
I too am very passionate about these circumstances. But I've been following Terri over the years. She just seems like she should be given the chance thats all.
There is no doubt that everyone and I mean EVERYONE has a thought on the subject.
Frankly and I might be wrong, but those who feel that congress should not have become involved are not siding with Terri's husband but for the act in itself of putting this case back to zero ignoring all past court decisions. I also think that if in fact Terri's folks prevail, that those who are on the opposite side will be gracious in that decision. I only wonder if they will be as kind to you, should the feds not agree with parents or worse choose not to take on the case.
I really do appreciate everyone's point of view. It is sometimes difficult to stand alone in your position.
All involved are in my prayers.
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.