Schiavo 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Decision

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ^ | 03/23/2005 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit

[XJarhead]

I find it impossible to believe that the Schindlers' attorney "refused to conduct" a de novo hearing. That would make absolutely no sense at all. (And the lawyers aren't in a position to "conduct" anything, anyway. They merely present, and the court conducts, as I understand it.)

It makes perfect sense. To prepare briefs addressing all of the issues de novo would be an extraordinary amount of work that could not possibly be completed in time.

So rather than try something they knew they couldn't complete, they picked the quickest strategy that they apparently thought would be "enough". It wasn't.

[antiRepublicrat]

The question of "forced starvation" is answered simply by finding out if the patient wishes to be starved to death.

Just a fine point: She won't starve to death. She'll die of dehydration long before that, which I think is even worse.

[antiRepublicrat]

I was surprised last night to see David Boies, of all people, give a positive review of Terri's case

Boies. That would be the guy who's currently losing the SCO Group's case against IBM.

[antiRepublicrat]

I believe they can either appeal to the full 11th Circuit en banc or to the U.S. Supremes.

The order stated a requirement for en banc before going to the Supremes, and set a very early filing deadline, already passed I believe.

[antiRepublicrat]

There was actually one human being found on that court. In the minority of course.

Unfortunately, he was also the only activist judge on the panel, trying to rewrite the law to suit a favorable outcome for Terri.

[Cboldt]

Just a fine point: She won't starve to death. She'll die of dehydration long before that, which I think is even worse.

Yeah. But I can't recall a phrase that turns as simply as "starve to death" when it comes to running out of water.

[bigeasy_70118]

There is a much better chance of getting the feeding tube re-inserted with an en banc hearing in the 11th Cir. than by having the Schindlers' attorneys argue before Kennedy whether SCOTUS should take the case.

Wilson provided some hope by citing the All Writs Act.

[Diamond]

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

Not so. She can eat and drink by mouth according affidavits of nurses who took care of her. She might need to be retrained, however, because of M.S.'s refusal of any sustenance by mouth.

Greer's order doesn't mention a feeding tube. He simply ordered, acting both as judge and surrogate decision-maker, the removal of nutrition and hydration.

So the pivotal question in this case, at least imho, is whether or not a state judge, acting as proxy for an incompetent ward, has the authority to order that a citizen of the United States be starved to death. This question is just one of the pivotal issues that the District Court and the Appellate court did not even address in in its self-characterized "de novo review"

Cordially,

[antiRepublicrat]

. Jeb Bush is also a Catholic. The Catholic Church has historically emphasized the importance and sanctity of human life. The Pope, through his spokesmen, has indicated that Terri Schiavo should not be starved and dehydrated. The governor should be duty bound by his conscience to deal with this matter.

Interestingly, that the Executive would take orders from the Catholic Church was the main paranoia surrounding John F. Kennedy's election. People rage over the Supreme Court using European precedent in their decisions, yet think that the President or Governor should be influenced by the decisions of the head of a European nation.

[antiRepublicrat]

Wilson provided some hope by citing the All Writs Act.

That was pretty easily shot down by the majority. I'm sure the Schindler lawyers filed their petition for en banc on time, and I expect the judges were all were ready to hear it as of the filing deadline. I expect an en banc decision soon.

[Poohbah]

So what should they do now?

Short answer: "I don't know."

Longer answer: what do you do when you really f*** things up by the numbers, and then proceed to f*** up your one chance to undo your f***-up?

[fatima]

That bad,Thanks for answering.

[Poohbah]

How do you know this?

Because the Schindler's attorney didn't bring a de novo pleading of the case from the start; he merely appealed the previous rulings.

I find it impossible to believe that the Schindlers' attorney "refused to conduct" a de novo hearing.

It's what he did. Maybe he didn't intend to do so, but it's what he did.

That would make absolutely no sense at all. (And the lawyers aren't in a position to "conduct" anything, anyway. They merely present, and the court conducts, as I understand it.)

OK, if you wish to start playing language Nazi, he didn't present the case as a new case. And the courts can't reach beyond his filing. They can't look at a case de novo if it's framed as an appeal of an existing case.

If you meant to say that the Schindlers' attorney failed on a technical point, and didn't frame the pleading correctly, then that's plausible.

Being an effective lawyer is all about the technicalities.

You may not think highly of the skills of the Schindlers' attorneys, but they're not absolute idiots.

Then why did they simply rehash the appeals that they'd already lost, instead of presenting the case as if there had been no previous rulings (which is what de novo means)?

Nor would they do anything so obviously counter to the interests of their clients.

You are incorrect; they did do something so obviously counter to the interests of their clients.

[ContraryMary]

FOX is saying that the Schindlers' attorneys did not file a petition for an en banc hearing and that it is going to the Supreme Court. Don't know if they're correct, however.

[Long Cut]

C'mon, Pooh, get with the program! You know that ANY judge that does not rule "correctly" in this case is by definition corrup, bribed, communist, a member of the Death Cult, liberal, a member of the Vast Conspiracy To Kill Terri(tm), blind, or a Disciple Of Satan.

Any opinions an "incorrect" judge issues are therefore "legalistic BS", and warrant the overthrow of the government. There's only ONE "approved" outcome, remember?

[antiRepublicrat]

FOX is saying that the Schindlers' attorneys did not file a petition for an en banc hearing and that it is going to the Supreme Court. Don't know if they're correct, however.

You're right, I read the decision wrong. They can go straight up. I can't read decisions well when they're not formatted properly.

[Nowhere Man]

I can translate this decision out of Atlanta into just a few words:

We are no longer a nation of laws. We are now ruled by judges who are free to decree who shall live, and who shall die, and their decisions are final.

These judges have not only affirmed the death of Terri Schiavo, they have confirmed the death of our Republic.

I would ordinarily say 'May God have Mercy upon us', but I fear that He will do no such thing now.

America is toast.

I can use fewer words, "The Republic is broken." - Anakin Skywalker to Princess Amadala

[ContraryMary]

FOX has just announced that the Schindlers ARE requesting an en banc panel. That they have chosen to stick with the 11th Circuit.

[Nowhere Man]

Well, kind of a dumb question, but can't W override this with an Executive Order?

Well, if I was W, you'd be hearing the drones of C-130's over the hospice as paratroopers of the 101st Air Assault and 82 Airborne Divisions "drop in."

[antiRepublicrat]

FOX has just announced that the Schindlers ARE requesting an en banc panel. That they have chosen to stick with the 11th Circuit.

Thanks for the tip. BTW, I tried to get the PDF that I can easily read from the 11th Circuit, but apparently their site is too busy.