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 ... 841-860, 861-880, 881-900 ... 1,161-1,176 next last
To: gravelroad
In Sciavo's case, it'll get you $1,000,000 and counting....
To: Dave S
You just tipped your hand.
Your words defining the Terri problem as being one which she becomes a symbol for the right to life crowd, pretty much sums up the obvious from your own declaration. That being that Terri's continued life would be disruptive to the abortion on demand crowd.
You spoke too much and peeled back the curtain my friend.
862
posted on
03/24/2005 10:08:22 AM PST
by
blackdog
(Lord of Woop Woop)
To: Raycpa
it was Caiaphas who advised the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. And wasnt it better for us that he chose to die for our sins?
863
posted on
03/24/2005 10:08:59 AM PST
by
Dave S
Comment #864 Removed by Moderator
To: Dave S
IOW's "go fish." I knew you didn't have anything.
865
posted on
03/24/2005 10:09:09 AM PST
by
TigersEye
(Free speech! It's not just for Democrats anymore!)
To: blackie
I don't care what you believe Sorry to hear about your mother. From your descption, she was terminal due to something other than starvation when life support was suspended. Not sure what life support your MIL was on.
Listen, I'm not saying a spouse CAN'T be the surrogate. What I am saying is that this is not automatic. The paramount wish of the law is to give each patient, each of us, the power of self-determination. You have a problem with self-determination?
866
posted on
03/24/2005 10:09:49 AM PST
by
Cboldt
To: gravelroad
I highly doubt the money angle on this one...I'd suspect it is something more criminal, like a cover up of abuse.
If it was all about money he would have taken the offer to walk away for millions of dollars...
He is covering something up.
867
posted on
03/24/2005 10:12:25 AM PST
by
matymac
(I'm saved...are you...?)
To: Cboldt
It does seem that some believe that a spouse's guardianship rights exceed the right to life. One you are born with, a supposedly inalienable right. The other?
868
posted on
03/24/2005 10:13:14 AM PST
by
TigersEye
(Free speech! It's not just for Democrats anymore!)
To: gravelroad
We must not grasp at legality like a drunk clutching a railing when life is at stake! If we want to remain a government of laws and not of men.
869
posted on
03/24/2005 10:13:23 AM PST
by
Dave S
To: MplsSteve
I read that Judge Greer has allowed Michael's request to cremate Terri - Immediately - after her death!
And there will be no way to have an autopsy to see what cause her collapse and various broken bones.
870
posted on
03/24/2005 10:13:45 AM PST
by
Anita1
To: DCPatriot
What I meant was that when Terri had her unfortunate episode which deprived her brain of oxygen...it must follow that your Christian beliefs are such that it was God's Will at that point. That was His way of calling Terri home. Whoever placed the tube in her interrupted God's Will.
By that logic we should have no ambulances, no EMT's, no ER physicians. Heck, no hospitals! You honestly think people with Christian beliefs should agree with that? Now I think I've seen everything.
871
posted on
03/24/2005 10:14:11 AM PST
by
lonevoice
(Vast Right Wing Pajama Party)
To: Cboldt
Florida law does not consider this to be committing suicide.
The problem here is that people want to discuss legal issues without using standard legal terms.
Take for example the argument that the feeding tube is not considered life support, but without it, Terri will die.
872
posted on
03/24/2005 10:14:15 AM PST
by
Luis Gonzalez
(Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
Comment #873 Removed by Moderator
To: Dave S
Law for the sake of law? Screw the principles that laws derive from. "...one nation, under law..."
874
posted on
03/24/2005 10:15:11 AM PST
by
TigersEye
(Free speech! It's not just for Democrats anymore!)
To: Cboldt
No, my mother passed away from ALS, and at a time of her choosing because she drew the line at a ventilator. That line was redrawn on her part however many, many times over the course of her path to death(which all of us are on by the way, some just longer than others).
You mention determination of self. When the determination of the self is contradictory, you need to err on the side of respect for life.
As to Michael Schiavo's declaration of Terri's wishes, I suspect that if he couldn't sell the notion to the family, he's not selling a sound argument. It's suspect.
875
posted on
03/24/2005 10:15:28 AM PST
by
blackdog
(Lord of Woop Woop)
To: TigersEye
It does seem that some believe that a spouse's guardianship rights exceed the right to life. One you are born with, a supposedly inalienable right. The other? Some of folks strive to control lives way beyond their own and their immediate family.
876
posted on
03/24/2005 10:15:50 AM PST
by
Cboldt
To: Dave S
Its not our . . . government doing it to the least of our citizens.Assuming you correct in your assessment (and I don't believe you are), that doesn't make it right.
Ultimately the whole purpose of government, indeed its only legitimate function when you strip away all the frou frou and look at its core, is to preserve and protect innocent life.
Government can breach that fundamental duty two ways: 1) by using its own agents to murder innocent citizens, or 2) allowing private agents to murder innocent citizens.
877
posted on
03/24/2005 10:15:55 AM PST
by
JCEccles
(If Jimmy Carter were a country, he'd be Canada.)
To: Cboldt
Did you know Terri?
What do YOU base what YOU think she would have wished on?
878
posted on
03/24/2005 10:16:06 AM PST
by
Luis Gonzalez
(Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
To: lonevoice
No...what you are seeing are examples of humans interferring with God's Will all the time.
Now, if God is so powerful, why do you think He would allow His will to be played with all the time?
Rhetorical question...of course.
879
posted on
03/24/2005 10:16:21 AM PST
by
DCPatriot
("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon)
To: Dave S
Greer admitted recently that he erred in his estimation of the credibility of the witnesses saying Terri would have wanted to live. How did he err? He believed that Ms. Quinlan was deceased in 1982. She didn't die until 1985. How is this relevant? He thought that when Ms Quinlan collapsed in 1975 she died after being taken from life support that same year. Terri would have been 11 or 12 at the time, which he said would not be an age she could make 'adult' decisions (note, girls that age are considered 'adult' enough to make the decision to have an abortion). So he ruled that Terri's statements about the case must have been made then in 1975, not in 1982 when the statements were actually made, when he believed that Quinlan had been dead for 7 years. She was still in the news at 1982, as her case was still progressing in the courts.
So Greer ruled that Terri's witnesses weren't credible, but that Mike's brother and sister-in-law were, so he 'had' to go with the wishes that were ruled credible.
So now he says "Oops, I was wrong on the credibility of the Schindler's witness, but it doesn't matter." And because the evidence Terri's witnesses were not admitted, NO other court has seen that testimony. A de novo review would have reopened that issue, but the courts have, in contradiction to Federal law passed March 21st, NOT DONE SO!!!!
The courts have ignored the law.
880
posted on
03/24/2005 10:16:41 AM PST
by
ex 98C MI Dude
(Our legal system is in a PVS. Time to remove it from the public feeding trough.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 841-860, 861-880, 881-900 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson