Posted on 03/22/2005 3:26:06 AM PST by tsmith130
Just heard on Fox....so sad.
Hopefully America will come to its senses and not allow people to starve to death. A statement with independent legal significance usually is applied to defamation or oral contract cases, where the out of court statement creates a cause of action. In this case the Court was looking to determine Terri's "wishes" and it looked for the best evidence and decided to accept the testimony of Michale Schiavo and his brother and sister in law. It also took the testimony of others who provided opposite statements of Terri's wishes. Judge Greer is determined to see Terri die and chose accordingly.
"this is expected - this judge gave notice of his decision as soon as he scheduled his hearing for 3PM yesterday."
You are so right. As soon as I heard of a 3PM hearing I felt it didn't bode well, knowing that the judge knew how critical time was in this case.
I would be very careful with your use of Jesus "bending the rules." The reason the ceremonial laws (not the Mosaic) were no longer required is because Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. If anything, when it comes to the Mosaic Law, Jesus strengthened them (see Mt. 5)
It used to be common in the first 2/3s of the 20th c to have laws that sterilized people with things like epilepsy...but at least we didn't think it was right to put down the "useless eaters"
Delusional implies that what I said has no factual basis. You are quite wrong.
Below is A Letter to the Editor (Seattle Times) that I wrote and that is published in todays 3/22 paper.
One of the most quoted lines in the Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." That's right, it says "life."
So why do so many Democratic lawmakers say the fate of Terri Schiavo's life is none of government's business? If government is not responsible for protecting the life of someone who is unable to speak for themselves, then who is?
Despite what the media leads you to believe, Schiavo is not terminally ill, she was not on life support, she does not have a life-threatening disease, and she is not brain-dead. By all rights, she is still an American citizen and is still protected by the Constitution, and is entitled to all the protections thereof.
Every mother's basic instinct is to provide life-giving food for her child. If government fails to listen to the pleas of Schiavo's mother to save her child's life, then I really fear the precedent this case sets for all of us.
Yes. He has been quite cavalier with Mrs. Schiavo's life, which he clearly does not value.
Since the clear intent of S. 686 was for Mrs. Schiavo to receive a full re-hearing, this judge is also exhibiting a flagrant disregard for the law itself: "In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings."
So you're saying that the onset of the dispute had nothing to do with the DNR or the cessation of therapy?
The MSM and mediots were all over yesterday with two things 1. the FL SC opionion as if the SC heard and dertermined facts (the SC did not) 2. The brain in her skull is the same as water in a jar, a liquid.
I don't think the mediots (see oreily) can be detered from being stupid. But I wish there was an xray/scan/image which showed the truth about the solid/liquid/nonliquid state of terri's brain.
They said this Judge was chosen randomly by a computer.
Probably programmed by some liberal computer nerd.
Which is exactly what the members of Congress were voting for Sunday night - having the tube reinserted during the NOVO case.
Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic? Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a point when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor polite, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right. -- Martin Luther King, Jr. -
Excellent post! Thank you.
Well said. The threads on this are more comical by the minute. Shame to see so many desperate, frantic fellow Freepers losing their senses.
Same here. I'm sure Slick Willie is proud.
According to Bobby Schindler on Glenn Beck yesterday, this suit is still in the works, hasn't fully been resolved yet. He didn't really elaborate though.
Make no mistake about it, there have been several important precedents set here. First and foremost is the precedent that states can order private citizens accused of no crime killed with no hope of judicial review from federal courts in finding of fact. Euthanasia on a grand scale, here we come.
Second is that state judges can ignore subpoenas from Congress with impunity.
Third is that courts are unquestionably the arbiter of what is constitutional and what isn't.
And fourth is that hearsay evidence is enough evidence to remove food and water from severely disabled patients.
May God bless Terri Schiavo because it is evident that the courts won't.
My only point is that (from what I understand) no one has questioned, in open court, the suitability of Michael Schiavo as a source. Only that "Terri wouldn't have said that."
Are you going to demand impeachment for Jeb or W if National Guard or Fed Marshals aren't sent to forcibly reinsert the tube?
No. Not at all -- though there are others here who probably would.
The core of my conservatism is tied to "not changing the rules" in mid-stream simply because you are losing. It applies here.
I've got serious questions regarding the Constitutionality of what the House, Senate and President did this weekend. But in any event, they did it, now we need to see it through. I had anticipated that a stay would have been granted to discuss and bring all the evidence forward in an of itself.
But ultimately, on Constitutional ground, this case is shaky at best.
My heart wants her to survive. I want her parents to take custody and move forward. But I'm also being realistic.
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.