Posted on 03/23/2005 12:21:22 AM PST by peyton randolph
The courts were created to be appliers of law. But they grown into something with larger ambitions, that take law into their own hands. Back in the box, you black-robed trash.
Is it that a good 'ol boy mentality infects these judges after they've been appointed, regardless of their previous political and judicial philosophies?
Are they so protective of their 'brethren' judges, and so jealous of their tyrannical power when it comes up against the legislative branch, that they lose all common sense?
And you think Executive Nullification is the way to go? Are you kidding?
Damn these are strange bedfellows... on both sides of this issue. I'd never thought I'd see elected Democrats extoll the virtues of federalism, for example.
I agree, but for the opposite reason. I think if we nullify the ability for the state to act in place of a family member, we are giving way too much power to the state.
Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.
This is wrong. Gibbs got the case into court and the judges had the facts and the law before them. That is all he is required to do. If the judges cannot follow the law, then the problem is with the judges. Don't lose sight of that. Ever.
This is the nub of this case.
I am very familiar with these issues, personally and professionally.
Although food and water are indeed basic necessities, the use of feeding tubes or other devices to deliver them is sometimes undesirable. Removing a feeding tube (or, usually, asking for it not to be re-inserted after trauma or infection) is not per se homicide.
Referring to this case as "forced starvation" is not exactly correct.
Take a person dying naturally at the end of their life. First, they don't get up. Then, they don't eat. Next, they don't drink. Then, they don't wake up. Finally, they don't breathe.
This process does not become "forced starvation" because a feeding tube has not been used, does it?
Now, there's little question that Terri Schiavo would have entered these stages of death many years ago but for the use of tube feeding. Her death would have resulted from her injuries, just as the deaths of many other brain-injured persons so result.
What's bad about this case is the result vis-a-vis her so-called "husband". This appears by commonsense to be wrong-that he, or anyone, should gain immediately and directly by her death has the decisionmaking capacity to bring it about.
But this scenario is quite common-feeding tube refusers or removers (designated decision-makers) almost all benefit in some way from their surrogate decision, sometimes very dramatically.
The use of so-called "living wills" was society's well-meaning effort out of the basic dilemma. The problem is, most people who have expressed the wish not to live if sick when healthy change their minds. We only kill the ones who are unable to express that change, because their illness affects their brain.
You are all right that an injustice is being done in Florida. But I think you are wrong that it is a murder.
If it's a murder, all the "living wills" in America are void (you cannot consent to be murdered), and we'll have to go back to the old way.
The old way was much, much better, but we've moved on and we aren't going back there.
Take comfort if possible that Terri is going to a much better place, and unquestionably will never have to see Michael again.
The ethics of forced starvation is one nub in this case. The other nub is a reasonable doubt exists that Terri would order her caretakers to cease all care, even if forced starvation was ethical.
When she dies I will find fault.
The Florida legislative branch, dominated by Republicans, could have put a stop to this. They didn't because of REPUBLICAN holdouts.
The Florida executive branch could have put a stop to this. But the REPUBLICAN Governor stood by at the end.
The US Congress could have put a stop to this. The REPUBLICAN dominated body did much too little much too late.
The federal executive branch could have put a stop to this. But the REPUBLICAN President didn't think that federal marshals upholding a congressional subpoena was wise.
The state and federal judicial branches could have put a stop to this. But REPUBLICAN appointed judges saw no need to protect Terri.
Right now I am disgusted with the lot of them.
Though this appeals court has turned down the first request, it did not say it would turn down additional requests.
Email from a friend about the Prayer Vigils going on...
Subject: Urgent help needed! Please make plans to attend spread the word to help Terri!
Dear Prolife Warriors,
We are organizing a round the clock prayer vigil and demonstration ASAP. Those of you who are able please go ASAP to the 11th circuit court of Appeals. Many of you already know the news, Terri's hands are in the Federal Court system here in Atlanta as of this morning. Judge Wittemore decided to do nothing and dismissed the case, so it has now been brought before a 3 Judge panel here in Atlanta. This is in our back yard folks, please make every effort to join in this battle and be present. Spread the word and invite your clergy friends. PLease bring poster board for your own signs and markers, plastic wrap for your signs might be important, as it is supposed to rain today. Be sure to bring umbrellas, rain gear, chairs or lounge chairs (for those who can stay the night) and blankets, even a change of clothes and shoes, due to the rain. Listed below are directions if you are coming from the North side of town down 75.
On Sunday I was going to send out an email asking for folks to join us in Florida, then we got news that an overnight special session was going to be held in DC. and that Terri's feeding tube could be re-inserted as early as Monday morning. Well unfortunately the case was assigned to a Clinton Appointee Judge and he did nothing. Now it is here....
For Life!
This is being done by a pro-life friend. Freep mail me if interested or need more information.
That was the object of my questions in post 142.
I can only make sense of this by assuming these judges were infected by hubris once they were appointed to the bench.
Whatever their earlier judicial philosophies, these guys soon feel the rush of near-unlimited power that a judicial appointment has conferred in the U.S. since mid-twentieth century.
They resent the legislative branch's intervention --however legitimate and constitutional that may be.
They've warmed up to the idea, encouraged by the elite media, that the legislative branch is just rabble; but that they, the judiciary, are God.
And by God, just out of jealousy and spite they won't abide the intentions of Congress.
Congress ordered a review of Terri's case, de novo. Doesn't that mean a gathering of facts from scratch, instead of accepting the corrupt Judge Greer's determination of fact?
Aren't these tyrants thumbing their noses at Congress and refusing to do a true de novo review?
Whether a person lives or dies depends on the luck of the draw of judges. Had a different panel of 3 been selected, the result could easily be 2-1 the other way.
What a sick society.
Agreed. The process is supposed to resemble a patient choosing to go on hunger strike the the point of death. No person is supposed to be denied control of their own body, so yes, technically, there is supposed to be nothing "forced" about it.
Take a person dying naturally at the end of their life. First, they don't get up. Then, they don't eat. Next, they don't drink. Then, they don't wake up. Finally, they don't breathe.
I'd like to substitute, "dying from causes other than lack of food and water" for "dying naturally," then certainly what you say here is true.
This process does not become "forced starvation" because a feeding tube has not been used, does it?
Well, dying from causes other than starvation is not relevant to the case at hand. The question of "forced starvation" is answered simply by finding out if the patient wishes to be starved to death. If the patient's answer is "no," then the starvation is forced.
Or even 3-0. The very arbitrariness of the process exposes the fact that we don't really have a rule of law.
I'll be surprised if SCOTUS even takes the case.
Unfortunately, we don't know what this patient wants. Her gurdian makes the decision. That's the way it's always been in this country. Are we going to throw that decision making power over to the government? I don't want the governemnt deciding what should be done. I trust my husband to do what I have told him.
Me too.
Believe it gets sent to Kennedy first. If 4 justices want to hear it, it is tradition to grant the appeal. That being said, I bet there are only three votes there: Scalia, Thomas...and maybe Rehnquist. Rehnquist hates Congress treading on 'his' turf, i.e. might kill Terri to protect the judicial lords.
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.