Posted on 03/21/2005 12:05:39 PM PST by Wolfstar
Clearly this isn't what was meant by privacy right. We know what the 4th amendment says. He's talking about the invention of a privacy right, but the Warren Court, to justify the Court's imposition of a radical cultural agenda, such as abortion on demand, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like you forgot a few "relevant" sections.
In fact one of the most important sections. having to deal with an individuals "rights"
And what does the 8th amendment mean, if not the preservation of innocent life, including the right not be killed by starvation by order of a court?
As a result of her state, he is the legal guardian, and according to the law, he speaks for Terri.
According to Florida law, when representing Michael Schiavo, those attorneys are representing Terri.
It's the law that's bad here.
There should be limitations placed on legal guardians and oversight on their decisions when it comes to cases such as this.
In the absence of clearly detailed, legal documents, the Law should fault in favor of life for the subject, in this case, she should not be allowed to die from neglect...which is what this amounts to.
Unfortunately, laws are changed as a result of cases such as this.
That may be Terri's legacy.
Napolitano, unfortunately, is wrong again. Check out Bork, who actually knows what he's talking about (see above).
The problem is that as her legal guardian, he does represent her.
Should my wife (God forbid) suffer serious injuries as a result of an accident, I am the individual legally entitled to make medical decisions for her.
Jeb Bush has no such power.
If you adjudicate as such, why all the wasted motion going to the District Court?
They are called "inferior" because one is called Supreme...everything else then must be inferior to something that is described as being "Supreme".
Get it now?
It does not mean that they are either subject to, or controlled by Congress.
Why is it that people who disagree with you are said to be using emotions (which the need to set aside) and consider the larger constitutional issue? A little arrogant, don't you think? What do you think we're arguing?
Can you post it?
I believe starving and dehydrating an individual to death would be considered "cruel and unusual" and torturous punishment.
Of course torture is forbidden under our constitution.
Demloser is right, and you are wrong. The Constitution does not set up inferior courts. It explicitly leaves it to Congress to do so. And Congress regulates those courts as well, AND the Supreme Court, apart from certain specific powers involving ambassadors, etc., which aren't relevant here. Congress can and has abolished courts, limited judicial review, etc.
Unfortunately for Terri and her family (BLOOD relations) that may very well be the case but I will not give up hope for these people and fellow citizens. I will continue to pray and hope that she is given another chance and HER day in court. There are too many questions and too many strange and ugly issues in this case. I simply cannot get past Michael Schiavo claiming to "love" Terri yet having another woman in his life (whom would be considered a common law wife in places that recognize common law) and having TWO children with this woman. THAT is NOT "love" for Terri. It is a betrayal of her and the wedding vows he took.
Also, I cannot get past statements that he has made such as "She died 15 years ago" yet he waited seven or eight years to mention that she wished to die if she were ever in an incapacitated state and this conveniently happened after the malpractice award was recieved.
I also cannot imagine that her family (parents, sister and brother) have anything to gain from this other than keeping their beloved family member alive. In all interviews I have seen, thay are the ones who come across as believable. They have remained faithful to Terri.
Wish I could hang around for more, but need my beauty rest. Night.
Napolitano is full of crap.
I never argued that, so perhaps you should read the full set of posts before jumping into the middle of a discussion, and assuming that you know what's being discussed.
The term "inferior" and what it means is the point being discussed.
"'Subordinate' may not have been the correct word, but the federal court system is "inferior" to Congress."
Are you siding with demloser in saying that inferior Federal Courts are subordinate to Congress?
Are you saying that the inferior Federal Courts exist to adjudicate according to the wishes of the Legislative branch?
Terri's best weapon, and her brightest hope are our 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.