Skip to comments.
Lawyer: Schiavo Ruling Expected Soon
AP ^
| 3.22.05
Posted on 03/22/2005 9:19:02 PM PST by ambrose
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-134 next last
1
posted on
03/22/2005 9:19:03 PM PST
by
ambrose
To: ambrose
2
posted on
03/22/2005 9:19:56 PM PST
by
MJY1288
(The Democrats are the party for the death of the innocent and life for the wicked)
3
posted on
03/22/2005 9:20:41 PM PST
by
ambrose
(....)
To: ambrose
Thank GOD!! But that still could mean another few grueling hours.
Oh, and yes, Mikey, feeding people truly does infringe upon civil liberties.
4
posted on
03/22/2005 9:21:21 PM PST
by
pkp1184
To: ambrose
Her parents argue that she could get better and that she would never have wanted to be cut off from food and water.
I can't believe this argument is even having to be made.
5
posted on
03/22/2005 9:21:25 PM PST
by
festus
(The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
To: MJY1288
Praying that God's will be done. His will, not mine.
6
posted on
03/22/2005 9:21:32 PM PST
by
ambrose
(....)
To: ambrose
*Sigh* It's been "any minute now" for hours.
7
posted on
03/22/2005 9:21:51 PM PST
by
shezza
To: festus
I can't believe this argument is even having to be made.I agree. I can't imagine who would want to go on "living" the way she is.
8
posted on
03/22/2005 9:22:38 PM PST
by
ambrose
(....)
To: ambrose
Maybe the judges could sleep on it and discuss it over brunch tomorrow if their schedules permit.
9
posted on
03/22/2005 9:24:06 PM PST
by
claudiustg
(Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
To: ambrose
10
posted on
03/22/2005 9:24:21 PM PST
by
ClintonBeGone
(In politics, sometimes it's OK for even a Wolverine to root for a Buckeye win.)
To: festus
"The critical issue is this: Do the authorities have the right to force feed somebody who does not want to be forcibly fed - even if that means they may die?
11
posted on
03/22/2005 9:24:47 PM PST
by
KDD
To: Torie
I'd imagine that a simple telephone call to the law clerk would tell when we can expect an opinion.
Spending time writing an opinion indicates that the trial court will be affirmed. If they wanted to reverse, they need only issue a one paragraph order, with an opinion to follow later.
12
posted on
03/22/2005 9:24:49 PM PST
by
ambrose
(....)
To: claudiustg
yeah, no rush at all... the woman is just starving to death while they take their time and examine all the "facts".
To: ambrose
Earlier in the evening, Attorney David Bois said he thought the court might order the tube re-inserted until a full hearing could be done. (I know, I really screwed up on a prior posting, but on THIS one, I'm certain Bois said it.)
14
posted on
03/22/2005 9:27:57 PM PST
by
Enterprise
(President George W. Bush - the leading insurgent detergent.)
To: ambrose
I'm praying for Terri, but I have lost all faith in our judiciary system. Does anyone honestly believe these judges didn't have their minds made up earlier in the day. They are simply stalling for time to look good fully realizing Terri is going downhill. I seriously doubt if these judges have missed one meal while Terri is starving. I honestly believe God has a special place in hell for those who pervert justice.
15
posted on
03/22/2005 9:29:25 PM PST
by
GarySpFc
(Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
To: Tired of Taxes
It is amazing that the Federal Judge in Tampa wouldn't order the feeding tube reinserted considering he is quite aware that his decision would be appealed. I'm ashamed of our Court system.... Ashamed
16
posted on
03/22/2005 9:29:32 PM PST
by
MJY1288
(The Democrats are the party for the death of the innocent and life for the wicked)
To: ambrose
I agree with you take on the ponderous nature of the timing of the rendering of a decison by the 11th circuit. However, if they are trying to fix the mess to which I adverted, then maybe that would take time too. But the odds are high that it is the former. If so, it will be interesting 1) whether the 11th circuit has a decision that renders moot what was in the pleadings, and 2) if not, to see what Gibbs does (at that point he will really have his butt in the bunson burner).
17
posted on
03/22/2005 9:29:55 PM PST
by
Torie
To: Enterprise
Yes, He said it, and I think he also said just in the last few seconds that he thinks they will ultimately agree with the present evil. I seemed to think that when he spoke early in the program he sounded as if he was for Terri.
18
posted on
03/22/2005 9:31:31 PM PST
by
bperiwinkle7
("In the beginning was the Word.....")
To: Enterprise; Nick Danger
Boies, that's the same guy who is (or did) represent SCO in their Linux suit?
To: Enterprise
I saw it too. Was he Bush or Gore's attorney in 2000.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-134 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson