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

To: Irish Rose

Ann is correct in that only one opinion has been issued in this circumstance - that of Judge Greer. Other levels of the judiciary have reviewed the case, but no additional facts involving the case have been introduced or even considered. The review of the case has been limited to determining if there was "judicial error" in arriving at the decision, and finding none, the verdict was simply rubber-stamped.

I am reminded of the execution of Private Eddie Slovik, during the Second World World, in which the conclusions of the first court-martial of Private Slovik, the sentence was death by firing squad (for desertion). The results of this court-martial were simply bucked up the line, with no call for clemency, all the way to the desk of General Dwight Eisenhower, whose comment on the situation was that no exonerating circumstances were ever provided at any level, so the decision must be right.

This is a parallel situation with Terri Schiavo, in which no call for clemency has been answered anywhere by any of the courts involved.

Michael has almost won. And the referees never called "Foul", even though a large part of the crowd saw the foul committed.

This is not a number on the scoreboard. This is a life.


33 posted on 03/31/2005 2:31:01 AM PST by alloysteel ("Master of the painfully obvious.....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: alloysteel

It appears Terri will only get her de novo review posthumously, and in the court of public opinion.

I expect more facts about her mistreatemnt will be released to the public once her family no longer has the need to try to protect her from any further abuse at the hands of her adulterous spouse.


44 posted on 03/31/2005 6:44:07 AM PST by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: alloysteel
Ann is correct in that only one opinion has been issued in this circumstance - that of Judge Greer. Other levels of the judiciary have reviewed the case, but no additional facts involving the case have been introduced or even considered. The review of the case has been limited to determining if there was "judicial error" in arriving at the decision, and finding none, the verdict was simply rubber-stamped.

What puzzles me: When a judge rules "a finding of fact"
such a ruling carries with it the principle of "undeniable proof".
Contrast that with conclusions of a scientific
experiment. For credibility, other scientists must be
able to replicate the experiment.

Conversely, no judge up the line will question a finding of fact. My question is: Is there anyway to question findings of fact? What are the grounds for impeachment of a judge? Can't congress investigate a judges finding?

As an aside I wonder whether Greer would support a finding of fact about the Resurrection.

91 posted on 04/02/2005 11:59:28 PM PST by cliff630 (cliff630 (Didn't Pilate ask Christ, "What is the Truth." Even while looking in the face of TRUTH))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | 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