Posted on 03/22/2005 6:58:07 AM PST by yatros from flatwater
No, they have it because of their status as the legal guardian. There's dark conspiracy here, just the way the laws are currently written. It is assumed that the legal guardian would know the wishes of the incapacitated person, and the law gives them the power to carry out those wishes.
Have the law changed if you don't like it -- that's your power.
While everyone on this thread would probably have come up with a different decision, the question is only whether the court ignored proper procedure in reaching that decision. The issue of an ad litem was a non-starter, the Schindler's attorney's ably represented Terri's interests. The religious issue was similarly weak. That's why it was included last.
From all appearances, this court decided this case right down the line and according to the rules. This will probably be upheld on appeal. The only way that Terri can probably be spared is through some type of executive or legislative action. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I never thought the judicial route would ever get a good result.
You are incorrect, this has now become a federal case and any new hearing of facts will be in a federal court, then remand back to a Florida court. Judge Greer had, at least, a huge conflict of interest when he appointed himself guardian at one point for purposes of hearing the charge in HIS COURT. I expect that the Third Circuit, if that is noted for them by Schindlers' lawyer, will take this on that basis now that the Congress has cleared up the habeas corpus.
Guardians, such as parents, are granted expansive powers over incapacitated persons and minors. For example, it is assumed that parents would know the wishes of their children and would act in their best interest. I agree. If the people of the states want to overturn the rights of guardians in situations like this, they need to lobby their legislatures and change the laws.
Not "supposedly" anything, it is contrary to Catholic dogma.
Judge Whittemore concluded that a state court judge's adjudication of a person's wishes is not a burden by the government on the person's religious beliefs,
Judge Greer IGNORED testimony that Terri was a practicing Catholic. That would seem to be a burden.
and that Michael Schiavo and the hospice cannot be sued here because they are not government actors.
MS can be sued and I'm quite sure he will be but it will be because he witheld the money earmarked for her care and rehab.
The law in this area addresses religious burdens imposed by governments.
Once more for the impaired. When the state ignores evidence regarding ones religious beliefs in deciding informed consent, the state has burdened that indivduals religious beliefs. To claim otherwise is to claim that up is down.
States don't have rights genius.
Of course it is, so you can ell the dems to stop fillibustering judges any time now.
Sorry to say, this argument was probably the weakest offered. Under the test the court was compelled to follow, her attorneys had to show that the district Court violated her constitutional rights in the way it came to its decision. They failed to do so. Don't blame the judge. Blame the Schindler's attorneys.
It seems that Greer's a priori beliefs are an insurmountable obstacle to overcome.
"States don't have rights genius."
Take a hike, you liberal. States' Rights is a pillar of modern conservatism.
"1. How does Florida get its State Rights? THROUGH THE PEOPLE.
2. How are the people represented? THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE."
Yeah. See, there's these things called courts which interpret the law in Florida. The legislature writes bills of varying detail and the courts then apply those laws in actual factual circumstances.
"3. The Florida Legislature used their States Rights. How? THROUGH TERRI's BILL."
And the courts determined that the legislature did not have the power to make this sort of law. Big deal. The legislature cannot make a law that strips me of my property without just compensation. What you are advocating is tyranny of the legislature. If you want that, move to the UK where Parliament has authority to do whatever the hell it likes. We kicked the Brits out to avoid what you are advocating.
"The United States Congress has the authority to appoint a new court to hear this through the
United States Constitution
Article 3"
Really? Is this diversity jurisdiction? Fed question jurisdiction? A conflict between States and a foreign power? Which part of Article three creates jurisdiction? And if you think it's fed question, then under what power to legislate did the Congress create the federal question? The commerce clause? Or are you saying that Congress can create a federal question simply by granding federal question jurisdiction?
Nice platitude you have there but you apparently don't know jack about Article III. I'd recommend 3 years of law school, then get back to me ...
Why don't we just have Geraldo go in there and interview her.
well, I suggest you get your children's wishes now. Don't you even care what their wishes would be?
well, I suggest you get your children's wishes now. Don't you even care what their wishes would be?
I also found this a bizarre finding. How can the judge decide that said duty of care was fulfilled without hearing testimony? The legislation required a de novo finding of fact.
Plaintiffs' argument effectively ignores the role of the presiding judge as judicial fact-finder and decision-maker under the Florida statutory scheme
The legislation requires that he, Judge Whitmore, set aside the findings in the original trial court and retry the case, de nova. I.e. the findings of fact must be his, after trial, and not those of another court.
I completely agree with you.
BWHAAAHAHHHHHHH!
Suicide is illegal.
How many have been brought back to face justice?
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.