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

To: jpsb

When the law says they must grant a de novo hearing, how can they constitutionally reject it? What sadists!


10 posted on 03/30/2005 12:29:38 PM PST by Norman Bates (Pray for Terri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Norman Bates

That was the problem. The law didn't say "must", it said "may".


42 posted on 03/30/2005 12:34:50 PM PST by isrul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Norman Bates

The law passed by Congress asked "In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings." The Congressional bill below and quoted above to me looks like it did not order a de novo hearing -- they asked the Court to "determine" if a de novo hearing should be called. Some lawyer correct me if I am wrong please.

“Compromise Bill” Re: Terri Schiavo Signed Into Law

The “compromise bill” shown below was introduced on Saturday, March 19, 2005, passed by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives on Sunday, March 20, 2005, and signed into law by President Bush early Monday morning on March 21, 2005.

According to lawyers for Terri Schiavo’s parents, the Bill is similar to a U.S. Senate Bill passed on Thursday “tailored to give the Federal District Court jurisdiction in the Schiavo case,” while the Bill originally proposed by the U.S. House of Representatives “sought broader legislation.”





AN ACT

For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Related Links:

SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.


The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.

Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.

SEC. 3. RELIEF.


After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.

Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.

SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--
(1) to assisting suicide, or
(2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.

SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.

Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.

SEC. 8. NO AFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.

Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self- Determination Act of 1990.

SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

It is the Sense of Congress that the 109th Congress should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care.


49 posted on 03/30/2005 12:36:10 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Increase Republicans in Congress in 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Norman Bates

...must grant a de novo hearing not of the evidence but of the judge's findings-few read that fine print.


109 posted on 03/30/2005 12:49:39 PM PST by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting johnathangaltfilms.com and jihadwatch.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Norman Bates

Thereby proving that you don't even know the meaning of the term de novo.


190 posted on 03/30/2005 1:09:32 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Norman Bates
When the law says they must grant a de novo hearing, how can they constitutionally reject it?

With all the rhetoric that has flown over the past week and a half, has ANYONE even attempted to answer that question?

291 posted on 03/30/2005 1:48:36 PM PST by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

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