Posted on 03/26/2005 1:34:45 AM PST by Destro
March 25, 2005
COMMENTARY
Why Schiavo's Parents Didn't Have a Case
By Andrew Cohen, Andrew Cohen is CBS News' legal analyst.
Terri Schiavo's parents did not lose their federal case because they didn't try hard enough. They didn't lose their case because everyone conspired against them. They didn't lose it because Congress ticked off the judiciary over the weekend with its over-the-top custom-made legislation. They didn't lose it for lack of money or because they failed to file a court paper on time. They didn't lose it because the laws are unfair or because bureaucrats sometimes can be arbitrary and capricious.
The Schindlers lost their case and their cause — and soon probably their daughter — because in the end they were making claims the legal system has never been able or willing to recognize. They lost because they long ago ran out of good arguments to make — those arguments having been reasonably rejected by state judge after judge — and thus were left with only lame ones. And they lost because in every case someone has to win and someone has to lose. That's the way it works in our system of government. It isn't pretty, and sometimes it's unfair. But it's reality.
Especially during this final round of review, orchestrated by Congress' extraordinary attempt at a "do-over" for the couple, Schiavo's parents lost appeal after appeal specifically because they were asking the federal courts to declare that their constitutional rights had been violated by the Florida state court rulings in the case. They were arguing, in other words, thanks in part to their custom-made congressional legislation, that the federal Constitution gave them the right as losers in state court to get a new, full-blown trial in federal court.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
"Could you show me the Florida statute that says a feeding tube is life support? Because Felos was using this case as a test case to change Florida law."
Felos, and the entire Michael Schiavo team, and many of the legal defenders of his position are part of the Hemlock Society and the Kevorkian wing of the Democrat party. Their objective is to legitimize, then legalize EUTHANASIA.
Christopher Hitchens is one of the more repulsive advocates against Terri. His despicable rantings on Joe Scarborough's panel ,against Pat Buchanan,
& (surprise!)David Boise and the Catholic Church were pure evil. Pat's response that the Catholic Church didn't have the moral authority of, say, his idol, Trotsky, shut Hitchens up. Go Pat Go!
Wolfson was fired by Felos.
Excellent points.
As an aside, being a guardian can be a money-making proposition. Literally. You can even make a living as a professional guardian. The courts appoint guardians for incapacitated people who have no next of kin. Professional guardians get some percentage of the person's estate in return.
The rights and duties of guardians are carefully spelled out in the laws of every state. However, the courts don't spend much time reviewing the decisions of guardians. Typically, guardians' decisions are rubberstamped by judges.
Many guardians are scrupulous but not all. A guardian could use his ward's money to buy a Mercedes because "he needs a reliable vehicle to visit his ward".
Combine large amounts of money and legal power to spend it with very little real supervision and you have a recipe for corruption.
He could have interpreted the term "clear an convincing evidence" to apply to both the conditions "the decision would have been the one the patient would have chosen had the patient been competent" or "the decision is in the patient's best interest"
In other words, if he wanted to err on the side of life, he could have interpreted the statute to require not just preponderonce of the evidence but clear and convincing evidence that it was in her best interest.
He could have but he didn't, because he wanted her to die.
I did not drop it! Imagining things? What I posted upholds the State court and the state laws.
God says ALL life is precious.
But God doesn't preserve ALL life at all costs.
In fact God allows ALL kinds of people to starve and die of all sorts of infirmity.
Does this make God evil?
How then can you demand a higher standard of man than we can expect from God?
I think your judgments are not fair.
"Well, technically the court got guardianship"
So the fix has been in since the beginning...*sigh* she never was destined to get anything close to a "fair representation" by the courts in Florida.
God expects us to work for good on this mortal coil even as Satan works his evil.
"Felos, and the entire Michael Schiavo team, and many of the legal defenders of his position are part of the Hemlock Society and the Kevorkian wing of the Democrat party."
If we want to go the conflict of interest path...then lets not forget that Felos donated to Judge Greer's last election campaign and is on the board of directors for the Hospice where Michael is keeping Terri.
judicial reviews upheld the decison over a dozen times now.
Ipso facto there is no systematic bias? Is that what you are trying to say?
And that proves what? Do you know for certain the evidence for why Schiavo has negated himself as Terri's proxy has been introduced? And how can the judge review the case look at everything from square one and look at any new evidence in the 1-2 hours they are "dedicating" to the hearing?
The judges are covering one another in this. None of them have the moral courage to do the right thing and stop this case in it's tracks and stop Terri from dying.
Answer the question.
Are you saying that the courts are above reporach and we have no right to question any ruling they make? Are you saying they are above reporach and their decisions are infallable?
Well?
Give me a major break. The children being arrested for bringing a glass of water have no clue as to what it means maintain the life of Terri.
Or the miserable state she has remained in for 15 years, unable to be freed to be with the Lord.
These simple minded kids have no understanding whatsoever as to the true gravity of this situation.
This is really pathetic.
Upheld because one cannot appeal a finding of fact, only a finding of law.
But do you think if it's true that the attorneys in this case have contributed money to Greer's election, that perhaps the findings of fact are themselves flawed and biased, that perhaps we need a new judge to re-evalute the facts of the case?
Yes, it is really pathetic, although not in the way you meant it.
If such a motion was put forth it has been rejected. Case closed for that avenue.
"Give me a major break. The children being arrested for bringing a glass of water have no clue as to what it means maintain the life of Terri."
I have kids that range from 15 to 7 and they ALL have a clue about things like this.
You are underestimating the youth of this country these days. They aren't all self absorbed like the MSM would lead youto believe.
"These simple minded kids have no understanding whatsoever as to the true gravity of this situation.
This is really pathetic."
Yes it IS rather pathetic that you would be so sanctimonious as to presume that because the kids wanted to something very Christian in nature that they would be "simpleminded". In fact the next time I'm back in the states I'll remember your comment as my Honor Student 15 y/o old goes to sunday school.
“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”
CHARLES DICKENS, Oliver Twist, chapter 51, p. 489 (1970). First published serially 1837–1839.
No - which is why you have judicial review all the way up to the Supreme Court. The legislature is barred from ruling on laws they pass - called seperation of powers. Civics 101. Answered for ya?
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.