Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Michael Schiavo Files Request With the SCOTUS, USSC Refuses to Take Schiavo Case

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]

Mod note: Calls for violence will result in suspensions

Michael Schiavo has filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking them to stay out of the case.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: arepblcifyoucnkeepit; arrestmichael; arrestmike4insulin; arrestmikenow; babylonfallen; blackrobedtyrants; changingrules; deathlegionsrejoice; dredscott; federalism; grandstanding; heb1225; inasmuchas; judgmentcoming; judicialtyranny; loser; michaelschiavoisevil; murderbyjudge; nationcursed; refusedtoheargod; refusedtohearhim; righttolife; schiavo; scotus; terri; terrischiavo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 801-820821-840841-860 ... 1,161-1,176 next last
To: Luis Gonzalez
Let's see, the Courts render judgments based on Florida law as written and enacted by the legislature rather than acting on their own and adjudicating the case based on how they feel about the law (which is what most people want them to do)

That's the problem. If this is true, there is no need for Judges to have any schooling.

They are supposed to Judge according to the law. Not from their "feelings." That's why they go to law school.

And even if most of the people want them to make rulings from their feelings, they should follow the law instead.

821 posted on 03/24/2005 9:47:16 AM PST by Syncro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
The laws that pertains to forced feeding are written into the Florida Constitution which itself is one of the most malleable constitutions in all the states. To amend it takes only a petition signed by a very small representation of the voters of Fla. The issue is then voted on in the general election. This is how we ended up this past election with a new law by constitutional amendment to protect pregnant pigs. The local GOP offered to Randal and other Christian activist organization that were here back in July or August their resource's to collect enough signatures to get nutrition and hydration stipulations which are written into our constitution modified. Their offer was rebuffed. I believe because they felt it wouldn't pass. So they opted to go this route.

I'm not sure they didn't take this route to stir up a media circus but that is what it looks like.

822 posted on 03/24/2005 9:47:33 AM PST by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

Waco......Church sanctuary gone terribly wrong!


823 posted on 03/24/2005 9:48:09 AM PST by blackdog (Lord of Woop Woop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55

I woke up in the middle of the night last night, thirsty. I couldn't help but think of Terri. Breaks my heart.

God bless Terri and her family.


824 posted on 03/24/2005 9:48:34 AM PST by trillabodilla (Pray for President Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gruffwolf
I understand that the cops were ordered to keep everyone out, but they could have just marched those kids right back to their parents instead of cuffing them and putting them in the car.

Sometimes when the law fails, civil disobedience is our only recourse. It worked 230 years ago.

825 posted on 03/24/2005 9:50:15 AM PST by Sender (Team Infidel USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
It's not I who worry too damn much. It is you who are far too cavalier about the implications of this case. Stick your head up your anal orifice, if you must, but the implications of this case remain.

It's easy to be cavalier when you don't give a damn.

826 posted on 03/24/2005 9:50:47 AM PST by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard (still praying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 820 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Please cite the Constitutional refeerence that says they can't do that

Google "Bill of Attainders" and review recent SCOTUS decisions.

827 posted on 03/24/2005 9:51:22 AM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

Comment #828 Removed by Moderator

To: All
The suggested language for the advance directive is unconstitutionally vague, in my opinion, when it comes to the situation Terri is in. It says, in part,
and if my attending or treating physician and another consulting physician have determined that there is no reasonable medical probability of my recovery from such condition, I direct that life-prolonging procedures be withheld or withdrawn when the application of such procedures would serve only to prolong artificially the process of dying, and that I be permitted to die naturally with only the administration of medication or the performance of any medical procedure deemed necessary to provide me with comfort care or to alleviate pain.

The terms "life prologing procedure" and "be permitted to die naturally" are where I have a problem. Very few people understand the ramifications of those terms of art, to include that "dying naturally" really means "committing suicide by starvation."

Anyway, sorry for the diversion. Still parsing the statute for the proposition that a spouse usurps automatically holds the patient's power to order medical treatment.

829 posted on 03/24/2005 9:52:46 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 818 | View Replies]

To: gravelroad
A governor is not above the law.

Can't take the law into his own hands.

830 posted on 03/24/2005 9:53:01 AM PST by the Deejay ( I'LL RESPECT YOUR OPINION....IF YOU'LL RESPECT MINE.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 819 | View Replies]

To: Ciexyz

I hope he's haunted the rest of his days.


831 posted on 03/24/2005 9:53:04 AM PST by GodBlessUSA (To all our Men and Woman in Uniform, past, present and future, God Bless You and Thank You!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 800 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
Reaction from around the world has, to me, been surprising.  Italians seem to be extremely upset by the decision.  The British are interested but stereotypically restrained.

IslamOnline's report concerning USSC refusal to hear the appeal was factual and accurate.  The following from US Supreme Court Rejects Shiavo Appeal may be of interest:

Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, President of the Fiqh Council of North American, told IslamOnline.net that all religion, particularly Islam, “are deeply concerned about the preservation of the dignity and honor of human life.”

He stressed that “only the Creator of life has the ultimate decision about life and death.”

However, the scholar said if a number of medical experts determine that a patient is in a terminal condition, then it could be permissible for them, through a collective decision, to stop the medication.

He added that if the patient is on life support, it may be permissible, with due consultation and care, to decide to switch off the life support machine and let the nature take its own time.

Dr. Salah Soltan, President of the American Center for Islamic Research, Columbus, Ohio, agreed.

He said if doctors agree beyond any shred of doubt that a patient is clinically dead and that the brain is declared dead, then it is allowed in this case to take off the life support.

This is the view of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, other Fiqh councils and the majority of contemporary scholars, Soltan told IOL.

He stressed that there is no provision in Islam for killing oneself or another person to reduce his/her physical or emotional pain or suffering from sickness or disease.

Mercy killing is forbidden in Islam as it encompasses a positive role on the part of the physician to end the life of the patient and hasten his/her death via lethal injection, electric shock, a sharp weapon or any other way.


832 posted on 03/24/2005 9:53:07 AM PST by Racehorse (Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

>Suppose, for instance, someone had a stroke and couldn't speak. A relative who overheard that person saying they didn't want to live under these circumstances, is enough to have that person's life support - even if it is just food and water, taken away.<

You bring up a very good point, Ivan. Let's say, I am very wealthy, and my extended family stands to inherit a large estate. Should your example happen, if 2 or more greedy relatives get together, and testify they heard me say I wouldn't want to live "with tubes", the precedents set in this case would give them the perfect way to get that estate more quickly.


833 posted on 03/24/2005 9:53:40 AM PST by Darnright (No matter how sick a person is, he is and will always be a man, never becoming a vegetable or animal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

Remember, only judges can make/break/forsake the law.


834 posted on 03/24/2005 9:53:41 AM PST by yatros from flatwater (Justice, Justice, you shall pursue!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: Vapor3; All
Could a church grant Terri sanctuary?

Uhm...the Gub'ment is not too worried about trampling on churces rights...imo.

Remember what happened outside of Waco?


835 posted on 03/24/2005 9:53:44 AM PST by underwiredsupport (...for the shape of things to come!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 811 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

To be fair, I didn't see the question you were responding to, so I didn't fully understand the context of the answer you were giving.

Sorry about that.


836 posted on 03/24/2005 9:54:09 AM PST by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard (still praying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 796 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

I finally had to turn off Fox News. They've had so many analysts on this morning to say why it's right for Terri to be starved to death, and so few on to say otherwise.

Before I turned the TV off, I heard Bobby Schindler in a phone interview. When asked what he wants to say to Terri's supporters right now he said "Just pray for Terri. And pray for my parents, this is really hard on them right now. And pray for Michael Schiavo." His last comment was deeply moving to me.

Contrast that with what immediately followed on Fox News - the press conference with George Felos. He spent a lot of his face time admonishing and condemning. He said that the behavior of Governor Bush was appalling and he should be ashamed. He had the hubris to say that Terri's parents should spend their remaining time with Terri being "contemplative" rather than continuing any attempts to save Terri. The man is evil. There's just no other word that better describes him.


837 posted on 03/24/2005 9:54:35 AM PST by lonevoice (Vast Right Wing Pajama Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 694 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
the decision to remove or continue life support, in absence of explicit documentation from the patient, falls on the next of kin.

True. But:

1) The definition of "life support" is a little fuzzy here. Her parents are asking to be allowed to take her home and feed her. They are not asking for ongoing care, at great public or hospital expense, involving high-tech life support equipment, operated by medical professionals who believe the effort is futile and ill-advised. I fully agree with Pres. Bush's position on the Texas law he signed, that allowed withdrawal of life support in those situations, regardless of the wishes of the patient's relatives.

2) I have a good deal of trouble with a state law that defines a husband -- even one who is living with another common law wife and has children with her -- as the "next of kin", while giving no legal standing whatsoever to the unanimous opposing view of the subject's parents and siblings.

838 posted on 03/24/2005 9:54:45 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 693 | View Replies]

To: gravelroad
Morality and the saving of the life of someone who is slowly being murder is more important than some stale legal text.

That's what they said at Nuremburg. People swung for obeying the letter of the law, as opposed to their consciences.

839 posted on 03/24/2005 9:55:16 AM PST by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 803 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Thanks for the citation ... still reading it.

Here is the part that hamstrings the surrogate, whoever it is, to follow the PATIENT's wishes ...

765.205 Responsibility of the surrogate.--

(1) The surrogate, in accordance with the principal's instructions, unless such authority has been expressly limited by the principal, shall:

(a) Have authority to act for the principal and to make all health care decisions for the principal during the principal's incapacity.

(b) Consult expeditiously with appropriate health care providers to provide informed consent, and make only health care decisions for the principal which he or she believes the principal would have made under the circumstances if the principal were capable of making such decisions. If there is no indication of what the principal would have chosen, the surrogate may consider the patient's best interest in deciding that proposed treatments are to be withheld or that treatments currently in effect are to be withdrawn.

Still no sighting of the term "spouse" or "next of kin."

840 posted on 03/24/2005 9:56:32 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 801-820821-840841-860 ... 1,161-1,176 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson