Terri Schiavo Before dehydration
*sigh* Destro we've agreed on many issues in the past but this is one we're going to have to agree to disagree on.
The argument is simple: taking innocent human life is wrong.
That we've managed through sophistry and red tape to obfuscate what every human being knows from childhood in his heart to be right and wrong speaks volumes.
At some point one has to consider individual rights over that of the state.
***And they lost because in every case someone has to win and someone has to lose. ***
But someone doesn't always have to DIE!
So has Judge Greer been the only judge to rule on the facts and the other judges have ruled on procedure, or has each of these judges been involved in ruling on the same facts as Judge Greer?
And the left thinks we're paranoid because we want to keep our guns!
Horsehooki. You don't call it a "court case" what amounts to kiilling witnesses.
All
Recommend watching "Judgment at Nuremberg".
I may not agree with the author's explanation of his statement, but IMO, this is the essence of the enormous battle the Schindlers---and perhaps thousands more in their situation---face.
The laws must define new parameters in right to live/die cases where there is no WRITTEN "living will". For instance:
1.--The patient must have separate legal representation to protect his or her right to due process; 2. --The definitions of "terminal" and "disabled" must be unbound and the disabled individual must be afforded all protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act; and 3.--The law must allow for guardianship by an individual other than spouse, or even family, if someone capable of accepting the responsibility petitions the court.
Hopefully, energy and passion can be challenged to preventing a situation like this in the future.
Bullshit. It all started with a punk named judge Greer who accepted Michael Schiavo's lies and who allowed M Schiavo to raid Terri's rehabilitation lawsuit settlement to pay his lawyers. Greer is in the death cult same as lawyer Felos and Michael Schiavo.
I don't accept "justice" built on a foundation of lies. F off black robes and your liberal shills such as this author
Given the Schindler/Schiavo facts (current location) and desired destination (a just outcome), it started driving and navigating on its own. But it got lost and is now going the wrong way.
The car is incapable of processing and acting on a corrected set of facts. The car is just bent on taking these passengers to hell, no matter what.
The passengers are beating on the dashboard and windows, trying to make it stop. They'll do anything possible to escape. And they should.
The passengers scream over their cellphones the car is flawed, much to the embarrassment and consternation of the designers, who even as the passengers rush to their deaths, claim it is perfect.
People have rights that the government cannot withhold or abridge. These include LIFE.
Bullshit. This goes on all the time with death penalty cases, racial discrimination cases and environmental cases. And that's just for starters
The author is death cult oriented so he only protests it in Terri Schiavo's case
Matters of life and death are under federal jurisdiction.
Those are the easy and clear reasons why she is dying. Besides those, one must remember at no time were any of the courts willing to go back and protect Terri's constitutional rights. They obfuscated by saying "she had a right to die" when, indeed, they were saying the state had a right to "kill her for reasons of mercy."
One could be a nonbeliever and still see the above. The question is whether there is political will to do anything. Be assured a tort will not solve this problem since if the court was operating in good faith all members to the killing are protected and that includes the husband.
We need a first rate book from someone. Then political action to take our lives and property back from the liberal courts. Presently, when the liberals want to change our habits and beliefs all they need to do is find a sympathetic judge.
Consider
Florida State law
FS756.101 Definition of "persistent vegetative state""
(12) "Persistent vegetative state" means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:
(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of any kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.
Both requirements have been disputed under oath by licensed medical professionals who examined Terri or cared for her at length.
FS765.401 Responsibilities of a health-care proxy:
[A] proxy's decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have been the one the patient would have chosen had the patient been competent.
This also has been disputed under oath. There are even claims Michael explicitly stated he DID NOT know what Terri's wishes were. The ONLY testimony that these were Terri's wishes was a hearsay claim made by Michael Schiavo only after becoming engaged to his mistress and substatiated only by his relatives. Hardly "clear and convincing."
These two points stand at the heart of the case. If either is not true then Michael Schiavo has NO RIGHT under Florida law to remove the feeding tube. They have been brought into question by sworn statement. If the basic facts of a capital case were brought into question, there is little doubt that at a minimum a stay of execution would be granted - by any court up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court - until the claims could be investigated. It is not unreasonable to imagine a completely new trial being ordered. NO person may be deprived of life without due process. The LA Times article effectively claims this applies only to those who have committed a crime. That is a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment, which explicitly claims no state may deprive a citizens of their life, liberty or property without due process nor may they deny equal protection of the law. The only possible remedy for such a violation would be federal intervention of some kind.
Part of the Schindler's case rested on the claim that the state - by allowing her husband to act - was not properly protecting Terri's right to due process by failing to take or allow certain actions (too numerous to list here), nor providing equal protection of laws by failing to grant protection similar to convicted felons when the basic facts of the case were in dispute.
Article III of the Constitution grants the U.S. Congress the authority to determine the composition and jurisdiction of all federal courts other than the U.S. Supreme Court. The law passed by Congress merely gave federal courts jurisdiction in this specific case - a point to which the very courts denying the Schinder's requests agreed. This is well within the stated scope of congressional power. Losers are NOT able to "walk into federal court and declare a federal constitutional violation." They have to petition Congress for the right to do so. So much for judicial "free for alls."
It's unfortunate that liberals are espousing traditional conservatism to bash conservatives. But the article raises effective arguments.
The federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, "empowered [*4] to hear only those cases . . . which have been entrusted to them by a jurisdictional grant authorized by Congress." University of S. Ala. v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 409 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994)). The plain language of the Act establishes jurisdiction in this court to determine de novo "any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Schiavo within the scope of this Act." The Act expressly confers standing to Plaintiffs as her parents to bring any such claims. There can be no substantial question, therefore, that Plaintiffs may bring an action against a party to the state court proceedings in this court for claimed constitutional deprivations or violations of federal law occasioned on their daughter relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. [emphasis mine]
Therefore, this particular case - according to law, precedent and tradition - can be reviewed by the federal courts under powers granted to the Congress by the Constitution. It is not an issue of state's rights.