Posted on 03/24/2005 4:45:17 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
A federal court hearing has started in one of the last effort attempts by Terri Schiavo's parents to restore their daughter's feeding tube.
But the judge already has turned down the parents once. Bob and Mary Schindler are asking for an emergency order to reinsert the feeding tube in the brain-damaged woman.
The hearing in Tampa is before U.S. District Judge James Whittemore. He turned the Schindlers down once, as did a federal appeals court and the Supreme Court. A state judge, a state appeals court and the Florida Supreme Court also have all come down on the side of the husband, who wants to let his wife die after 15 years in what some doctors call a vegetative state.
The latest defeat for the Schindlers was today when a state judge said he won't go along with Governor Jeb Bush's request to order the feeding tube reinserted. The governor had said that new allegations of abuse of Terri Schiavo need to be investigated. The governor also tried to challenged the diagnosis that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state.
In Pennsylvania, the Newbie Judges get Family Court, then they move to Probate Court, then Criminal or Civil depending on their preference.
Hearing just finished per FOX
Damn, a coup happened and I missed it.
do tell if you know? Was there alot of bad language and personal insults and flames and shaming and apologies and freepmail flying like snowflakes.
I always miss the good stuff.
The insane "heresay?" law?
It was done **very** quietly.
Like it's going to be done in a LOT of blue states if the bad guys succeed in this...
First of all, if it's a liberal cause, the SCOTUS is certainly willing to hear a case "about one woman" - such as Roe v. Wade, which certainly set a monstrous precedent we still live with today. But heaven forbid SCOTUS actually be used to bring about some conservative good. And this is not a "narrow" case at all - it's about someone's life for starters, and there will be a definite precedent set about whether murder by judiciary is going to be permitted or not. And if it's a death penalty case - only affecting one person - then the SCOTUS is certainly willing to take the matter up.
You claim to be against activist judges but you accept the main premise of judicial activism - that a law is a law because someone in a black robe says so, and that following the Rule Of Law means kowtowing to whatever the black-robed dictator says. No. Fighting judicial activism means fighting it (imagine that!) and actually opposing them. Failure to do so is not to accept the rule of law, but, rather the rule of men, completely unbound by either higher human law (e.g. the Constitution) or Divine law. This is tyranny. And now we have the extreme of raw power, where a judge can order a woman's death. Such "laws" are not laws at all, deserve no respect, and only contempt.
Then you accept the idea of "moral equivalency" between the left and the right, as though the worst evil were "judicial activism" itself, rather than what it is being used for. Moreover, liberals are not bound by such niceties like theoretical questions about what is the proper role of the judicial branch. They'll do anything to get their agenda through. Do I favor "judicial activism" if necessary to save a woman's life? HELL YES!!!! We're not "having it both ways". We're having it the right way. And as for "breaking the law", if the "law" (meaning, really, the dictates of someone in black robes) mandates the killing of the innocent then the law ought to be broken.
With attitudes like yours we would still be swearing allegiance to the British monarch. Cowards like you make me sick. We are dealing with tyranny here. And tyrants must be opposed. To quote someone else, I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death. And those who prefer wealth and material comforts to the blessings of liberty, may posterity forget you were our countrymen.
Greta interviewed the warden from San Quentin about Scott Peterson's first days in prison. He said Scott's first breakfast was pancakes, bacon, orange juice and coffee.
Did I break your ear drums? ;-)
Double entendre? Very nicely put; A murder of black robed judges hovering over the dying Terry like a murder of crows.
I've seen that assertion here at FR and doubt it strongly.
Sorry, your rantings no longer interest me.
The Schindler's should have gotten competant lawyers 8 years ago, but I quite frankly think the Schindler's are too blind to notice they're getting ripped off by their own lawyer.
He could say anything he wanted.
But George W. Bush is not going to resort to lawlessness.
But apparently we're not going to fight for the right of disabled Americans not to have their feeding tubes withdrawn.
I pinged Jimrob. I hope he's okay. I wonder who's in charge now...
Who are you to judge the strength of the Bush's faith? The Bush brothers are among the strongest and most resolute leaders this country has ever had. have you been privvy to their counsels? Do you know what they're thinking, planning, doing? What am I saying...you can see the strength of their faith! Of course you know what they're up to!
'I couldn't MAKE this stuff up if I tried."
With all due respect. You are two longtime Freepers whom I admire and with whom I agree so often, though I may not post about it.
I must agree that some people are really losing it in terms of wanting to save Terri. Feel free to check my earlier posts (please don't read my posts of last night, though, after I had a big dinner with a lot of wine, LOL).
Anyone who thinks the GOP did this for a political advantage is off their rocker. Not only did they alienate most people who think this is a family matter, they alienated plenty of conservatives who think the same thing, and another group of conservatives who won't be satisfied until GW himself sends in federal troops to rescue Terri.
All the stress and emotion has combined to make people go out of their minds with grief (and they aren't even family members), may I respectfully request that we not laugh or mock people who are upset. Or make lists.
Yes, he could say it -- AND HE HASN'T. That's not courage in my book.
I walk around and see people at work and they just haven't a single clue.
It's the "it'll never happen to me," or "it'll never happen here." mentality.
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.