Posted on 03/22/2005 10:42:14 PM PST by ambrose
Everytime an activist federal judge stomps on some town or state's rights (especially freedom of religion), they demand we take it as gospel. Everytime an activist state judge or supreme court rules in there favor, they claim state's rights.
The legally blind Judge Greer is not the state. As a matter of fact, the elected represenatives of the State of Florida have basically been banned from intervention by the Florida Supreme Court. This is the same court that wanted democrats to have multiple recounts for imaginary Gore voters who "had their vote stolen" until he stole the election.
Of course the fact that many democrats disagreed with the pro-death movement will get nowhere near as much coverage even though many more democrats voted for federal intervention than republicans voted against it.
"Splinter" is the appropriate word because the conservatives who would rather let Terri die than violate abstract principles comprise a mere splinter; whereas conservatives (like me) believe actual LIFE trumps all comprise the large piece of wood from which that splinter breaks.
"Divide and Conquer"
Maybe if someone explained that Terri was being DISENFRANCHISED.
According to news reports Michael Schiavo has already ordered an immediate cremation.
Amen to your post!
"If only Terri Schiavo had murdered a few people before she had her accident, there'd be no controversy. She would not only be guaranteed 25 or 30 years of life while her appeals wended their way through the courts, but at the end of that time, if worse came to worst, she would be given a painless injection, not starved to death.
As far as I can see, the entire basis for the case being argued by those wanting her dead is that she can't walk, she can't talk, and she obviously can't feed herself.
Well, if those are sufficient grounds for exterminating Terri Schiavo, they provide equally good reasons for murdering every baby in the world!"
By the way, 90% of the people that I have asked have said they would not want to live in that condition even if that meant removing a feeding tube. This is not a new procedure.
Isn't it their duty to intervene in a State Court decision if said court has violated the civil rights of an American citizen? What's their real problem anway, a lack of testosterone or the fear of losing votes?
He'll suddenly remember that Terri said sometime ago that she would not want an autopsy and Judge Greer will accept it.
In this instance,there is no living will, nothing signed by the lady they are trying to kill, only the supposed recollection of her husband (no corroboration).
It would seem that without a living will in existance, the words of another concerning the termination of life would be simply hearsay. There ought to be a presumption of life in such cases, not death. The courts should protect those who are powerless to protect themselves.
What ever happened to the concept of police investigation when there is an 'unexplainable' injury??? Even now, after all the public scrutiny, you would think the police might want to take a 'look see' at this case NOW. Especially if Terri dies, you'd think they'd get a court order to do an autopsy to determine past injuries.
This whole thing stinks.
And 100% of those people you asked have no real idea of what they'd want unless they actually found themselves in that position. And if Terri Schiavo's mind is active inside, there is always hope for some partial recovery with the incredible advances constantly being brought forward in modern medicine.
Terri Schiavo may simply want to live because she knows that she still brings joy to the hearts of her beloved parents. She may want to live to please God and serve His purpose for her. She may want to live because she's simply not ready to die yet. AND SHE MAY WANT TO LIVE BECAUSE AS A CATHOLIC SHE BELIEVES THAT ENDING HER OWN LIFE OFFENDS GOD AND ENDANGERS HER SOUL. There could any one of a thousand reasons why she may want to live.
All anyone really needs to know is that she's an innocent woman who can live a lot longer on a simple feeding tube, who has a whole family who wants to take her home and care for her, and who has the full support of half this great nation, (including their financial support for medical expenses). You cannot find any moral or reasonable reason to snuff out her life by starving her, End of story, for me anyway.
More than just "right"; DAMN right! :)
Their real problem is that those people are not Republicans, but Democrats who like to be called Republicans because they want to steer the party to the left.
Terri is over 18.....didn't the Supreme Court rule on this recently?
An erroneous decision not to terminate results in a maintenance of the status quo; the possibility of subsequent developments such as advancements in medical science, the discovery of new evidence regarding the patient's intent, changes in the law, or simply the unexpected death of the patient despite the administration of life-sustaining treatment at least create the potential that a wrong decision will eventually be corrected or its impact mitigated.
An erroneous decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, however, is not susceptible of correction.
From the ruling you have linked to. This is what the President was talking about-- to err on the side of life.
Judge Greer is not following established case law by the Supreme Court. He is trying to reverse this decision and make new law.
This is what's causing the problem in this case . When you have Activists judges that try to rewrite The Constitution or established case law to suit themselves or their agenda that's when you have major complications.
They have to make it up as they go along.
None of the judges or courts have looked at his basis for ruling the way he did .
They just looked to see if he followed procedures. These activists judges have to go. They are already made it legal to kill babies and now they want to kill the physical and mental disabled.
There is a malignant undercurrent of evil growing in the shadows of our country.
An erroneous decision not to terminate results in a maintenance of the status quo; the possibility of subsequent developments such as advancements in medical science, the discovery of new evidence regarding the patient's intent, changes in the law, or simply the unexpected death of the patient despite the administration of life-sustaining treatment at least create the potential that a wrong decision will eventually be corrected or its impact mitigated.
An erroneous decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, however, is not susceptible of correction.
From the ruling you have linked to. This is what the President was talking about-- to err on the side of life.
Judge Greer is not following established case law by the Supreme Court. He is trying to reverse this decision and make new law.
This is what's causing the problem in this case . When you have Activists judges that try to rewrite The Constitution or established case law to suit themselves or their agenda that's when you have major complications.
They have to make it up as they go along.
None of the judges or courts have looked at his basis for ruling the way he did .
They just looked to see if he followed procedures. These activists judges have to go. They are already made it legal to kill babies and now they want to kill the physical and mental disabled.
There is a malignant undercurrent of evil growing in the shadows of our country.
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.