Posted on 03/24/2005 7:22:09 AM PST by ConservativeMan55
Edited on 03/24/2005 7:43:21 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
What the hell are you talking about?
Have you taken leave of your senses?
I support the law, and the orderly change of the law.
It's a terrible, tragic thing.
Let her be whole and with her Maker.
I believe that everyone has lost sight of Terri long ago.
Rubbish. THey have been finding in favour of Michael's interpretation of her wishes. Her Catholic faith would be a counterpoint to his interpetation, as is what her parents say. The courts can be an ass - you're acting as if they're sacrosanct. One would have thought the shenangians we experienced in Florida in 2000 would make you think twice.
Ivan
Those definitions refer to Guardian. I don't have the time to read them right now, but anyways I meant the definition of PVS.
Mmmm...
I was paraphrasing Judge Andrew Neapolitano on FOX News roughly ten minutes ago.
Then again, I'm sure your knowledge of Florida law far exceeds his.
I can hear it now, at the Rallies for the Judiciary, at Campaign Stops, in all the mailings:
You don't surprise me with your position: Terri is worth more to the "Republican Cause" dead than alive.
Nobody gets canned b/c they saw
a crime!!
Luis always supports the courts. Remember when he supported them legally taking away Elian? Oh, wait...
You are supporting as right and necessary her murder by starvation and dehydration. You are suggesting this is due process. It's not my problem that you obviously have some sort of cognitive dissonance that doesn't make you see this.
As for Terri - that's bloody rich. You are not thinking of her at all - it is her wishes that should be paramount. In the absence of a definitive version of those wishes, i.e., a living will - her life should be protected. In contrast you're content for her to suffer an excruciating death by starvation and dehydration - consideration far worse than is given to animals in a dog pound or criminals on death row.
Ivan
That'll teach me to post in haste: "Remember". You get my point, I trust.
Here I am again, standing by the letter of the law, while others argue that the law should be interpreted to their "liking".
Given what I have heard from judges lately, there are circus clowns who have been smacked in the face with a pie too many times who probably have greater respect for the law than many of them.
Again, if you are going to judge the wisdom of Florida judges as sacrosanct, then let me remind you of a couple of things, the year 2000, the election and the dangerous possibility of "President Al Gore".
Ivan
On the contrary, you are sticking by the Florida judges interpretation of that law. Again, the year 2000 ring any bells?
Ivan
Ah yes.
But Jesus said,
"They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.
You have let go of the commands of God
and are holding on to the traditions of men.”
And he said to them:
“You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God
in order to observe your own traditions!"
(Matt. 7:7-9)
Remember how there was such widespread support for FLorida courts when they were going to recount after recount in 2000 until Al Gore became President?
Regards, Ivan
I am troubled by the political fallout, and can only hope that the Democrats will manage to p!ss away the gift that has been handed to them on a silver platter.
(snicker)
I smell a Pharisee. I suppose if that is what all of our Republican representives mean by "rule of law", "pro-Life" and "pro-marriage" then its time to form another party.
Well...you know...that was different. /sarcasm
You are probably correct. The nurse never actually saw Michael inject her with the insulin so she could not prove a crime was committed. I think she probably had enough reason to believe that there was something going on and she reported it to the director of the facility.
That being said lots of people get fired for making waves. Also Michael IIRC has a nursing degree and may have been quite friendly with the director.
They were wrong then, I said as much, and the SCOTUS smacked them.
They are right in this case, I am saying as much, and the SCOTUS (plus every other judge that's examined the case) supported the Court's findings.
Well...another spineless weasel who can't seem to address those whom he talks about.
What's the deal Toy Boy, no spine?
The case has only been federalised just now. As I recall, the federal judges were Clinton appointees. Furthermore, the present SCOTUS is not known for its reliability on right to life cases - hence they continue to maintain Roe vs. Wade which is based on dubious constitutional law.
The point being - it is just as valid to suggest the judges are being an ass in their interpetation of the law as it is for you to say they are being correct. With the technicalities being a matter of legal interpetation, we have to return to basic principles of jurisprudence, and this is not on your side, seeing as it contravenes the basic rights and morality the law is supposed to enshrine.
Ivan
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.