Posted on 03/30/2005 6:44:50 PM PST by watchdog_writer
So a vote by both houses of the California Legislature and a signature by Ah-Nold on a bill to set aside the jury's decision and declare OJ Simpson guilty of murder is perfectly legal? If not, then the branches aren't "co-equal", are they?
A majority of the Supreme Court and Congress can declare that President Bush isn't C-in-C of the Armed Forces any longer, but he has been replaced by Pee-Wee Herman? 2 out of three, not "Co-Equal" otherwise!
You appear to have a grossly distorted view of Separation of Powers.
Always? So the legislature can, by majority vote, overrule any court decision? Even in a criminal trial by jury?
Arcadia, I am entirely calm. I agree with this poster that Jeb Bush isn't or wasn't is as now the case, morally compelled to call in the military, the National Guard or the UN to forcibly tear down the doors of the hospice and save Terri. And those tactics HAVE been suggested on this forum and I for one do NOT agree.
As the poster of this thread writes, if we want things changed, if we want balances on the judiciary it's up to us to make that happen. But not by throwing the baby out with the bath water and having our governors go off half-cocked. Extreme measures by Jeb Bush would have solved nothing. Except made him and Pubs look bad. And given the media fodder for the next year and half. Please spare me.
Lastly to deny that certain people on this forum are not purposely planted here by the DNC, Dean etc is either the height of naivety or willful blindness.
I support this posters position as do others on this thread. You obviously don't. As you stated, apparently we disagree. Frankly, I can live with that.
We do that through legislation. We accomplish this through the separation of powers:
Legislative Branch makes the laws.
Executive Branch enforces them.
Judicial Branch interprets them.
There are always imbalances -- right now it appears the Judiciary is lopsided. But we MUST respect the rules as laid out in the USC, which you quote but do not understand.
This is still a matter of only wanting to follow the laws "we" like. Just like DU after November.
Thank you for posting the thoughtful essay and for your kind response to my rant. May God bless you and your family.
Regards,
LH
No insurance companies like early deaths. Especially if they cover the patient/soon to be corpse.
"The buck stops in the courts in this matter.
Last I checked, the court has no troops to support their murder. Jeb has troops."
True, very true. However the grapes were absent.
Well .. if you had bothered to check my page - I don't live in FL I usually don’t check pages because I just don’t have the time, but even if you don’t live in Florida, if you vote you will have the same opportunity in your state.
Greer didn't just abuse "his discretion" - he ignored legitimate testimony against Michael because it suited him - that's irresponsible. I can’t argue that point since I have no way of knowing the Judge’s motives. The press has not reported the intricacies of the law, so it is quite possible that if we were to make a thorough investigation we might find that the problem is with how the law is written and not what Judge Greer did?
For example: "Proxy" means a competent adult who has not been expressly designated to make health care decisions for a particular incapacitated individual, but who, nevertheless, is authorized pursuant to s. 765.401 to make health care decisions for such individual.
(2) Any health care decision made under this part must be based on the proxy's informed consent and on the decision the proxy reasonably believes the patient would have made under the circumstances. If there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, the proxy may consider the patient's best interest in deciding that proposed treatments are to be withheld or that treatments currently in effect are to be withdrawn.s765.401.
(3) Before exercising the incapacitated patient's rights to select or decline health care, the proxy must comply with the provisions of ss. 765.205 and 765.305, except that 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 or, if there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, that the decision is in the patient's best interest.
So you see it is not a simple as it first might appear.
You should find a good book on the separation of powers. I think you will be surprised to find the congressmen do know their limits. The recent emergency law that congress passed, that the President returned to Washington to sign in the middle of the night, was all the Constitutional authority they could exercise.
I know you will hear people making statements about the law, but many of them are just “jailhouse lawyers” do not rely upon what they are saying. It is more rhetoric than law and it is designed more to mold public opinion than it is to educate.
"we might find that the problem is with how the law is written and not what Judge Greer did"
I agree with the above statement somewhat. I believe that not only is the law terribly flawed - but Greer used those flaws to suit his purpose.
I say that because I read several of the former nursing staff reports - which Greer totally discounted and chose to KEEP FROM BEING ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. Why would he do that except that those statements made Michael look like a monster. And .. I believe Michael was and is.
Then .. Greer allowed the husband to use TERRI's JURY AWARDED MONEY for the husband's own purposes. When the parents protested - Michael claimed the parents just wanted the money - yes they did - they wanted the trust fund money to spend on their daughter's care - not like Michael who spent it on lawyers to hasten her death.
I don't know what the judge's motives were - whether it was personal or otherwise. I only know that if Terri was my child I would be livid at how this judge went out of his way to provide an avenue for this husband to have her killed.
Also .. I believe that FL statutes say that the husband has acquired a "common law wife" becauses he has lived with Jody for a certain period of time. That means that he's married to two people. According to the statute I read, the husband has committed a crime by doing this - a crime which would prevent him from being appointed A GUARDIAN OF ANYBODY. Somehow the judge never seemed to take note of this condition, and a Motion [2002?] is still pending before Greer's court to have Michael removed for not fulfilling his responsibilities as mandated by his guardian status.
Greer has basically ignored that Motion - why? From what the nurses were saying and the husband's status of marriage - he should have been immediately removed from the position of guardian. I believe it was irresponsible on the part of the judge to allow Michael to stay on as guardian of Terri.
Now you may support Greer - that's fine with me - I've simply pointed out the problems I personally have with his actions. I'm not requiring anyone to agree with me.
I do not support the decision to terminate Terri’s life, and I do not support Judge Greer, nor do I have sufficient knowledge of the facts to say that he abused his discretion. Without getting into the law, on moral grounds, she would have been best served by allowing her parents to decide her fate. Given the following statute removing Michael was a decision that Judge Greer could have made or it would most certainly have been overruled on appeal. The statute is clear as to who shall serve as proxy.
765.401 The proxy.--
(1) If an incapacitated or developmentally disabled patient has not executed an advance directive, or designated a surrogate to execute an advance directive, or the designated or alternate surrogate is no longer available to make health care decisions, health care decisions may be made for the patient by any of the following individuals, in the following order of priority, if no individual in a prior class is reasonably available, willing, or competent to act:
(a) The judicially appointed guardian of the patient or the guardian advocate of the person having a developmental disability as defined in s. 393.063, who has been authorized to consent to medical treatment, if such guardian has previously been appointed; however, this paragraph shall not be construed to require such appointment before a treatment decision can be made under this subsection;
(b) The patient's spouse;
(c) An adult child of the patient, or if the patient has more than one adult child, a majority of the adult children who are reasonably available for consultation;
(d) A parent of the patient;
I am trying to be careful not to criticize Judge Greer because his decision was upheld in all the appeals. I find it hard to believe that so many judges would intentionally violate the law. I have read the case law, but not the entire transcript of the trial. It appears to me that Felos did a more persuasive job of lawyering and out gunned Pamela Campbell, who admittedly was at a disadvantage not having the funds and experience that would have benefited the Schindlers. If I am not mistaken her conduct of the trial was reviewed and was considered sufficient.
This we both agree upon: The law if flawed, and I expect that it will be amended.
If Judge Greer kept records from being presented that would be an issue that is appropriate to review on appeal. The admission of evidence is sometimes so complicated that it may not make any common sense. I’m not sure what evidence you are referring to, but the rule that permits a case to be reopened requires the production of “new” evidence. That is evidence that was not available at the time the original trial took place. Remember I am not being critical of Ms. Campbell, but she lacked the resources and perhaps the people who came forward after the trial was over, would not have come forward earlier even if Ms. Campbell had made a more complete investigation. As you might expect people do not want to become involved in litigation. Where were all the demonstrators prior to the trial on the merits? They were not engaged until someone said that Terri is going to die. Then the witnesses who had remained silent up to that point came forward, legally it was too late.
Greer allowed the husband to use TERRI's JURY AWARDED MONEY for the husband's own purposes. Greer is a county probate judge. He did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate that issue. Perhaps what he did amounted to a crime? That is a separate issue. A probate court is a court of very limited jurisdiction.
this judge went out of his way to provide an avenue for this husband to have her killed. I can’t comment on this since it would require reading his mind. His legal decision were reviewed on appeal and upheld, if that means anything? I agree that judges should not legislate from the bench, but that is a theoretical discussion and subject to interpretation. A jury trial would have removed some of the judge’s bias if he had any, since the jury would have decided if the proofs satisfied the “clear and convincing” evidence test.
I do not believe that a person can acquire a “common law” marital status if one of them is already married while the cohabitation took place, but that is just my best guess, I have not researched the issue.
Excuses excuses.
bttt
Sorry but I do not understand this abbreviation. I believe that is was morally wrong to kill Terri, and I also believe that there are judges who are not pro-life as I am, but I believe that the Florida statutes need to be amended. I blame the law not the lawyer in this case.
btt back to the top
Keyes is right about Jeb.
If Jeb didn't want to be responsible for the lives and well being of the people of Florida, he should never have run for governor.
I agree with many of Mr. Keyes positions, especially on the abortion issue and on establishment clause. There is no one more eloquent on those topics. For example he argues that each state constitutionally has the right to establish a religion, but the courts have so misinterpreted the Constitution, and the opinion have become so entrenched in our legal history, that while I agree in principal, I can not conceive that his argument will prevail in any court in the land.
I believe that Governor Bush not only tried to keep Terri alive but he did more than Bill Clinton, or John Kerry would have done, or any democrat for that matter. Clearly the democrats have shown that they opposed all attempts by the Governor and his brother the President to save Terri's life.
Well .. I'm just going to comment on a few statements you made so you can see where I'm coming from.
While you seem to believe that even if Greer had removed Michael - somehow by appeal he would have been reinstated. I'm not sure I believe that. Greer has been the LEADER on all these issues - with the appeals courts agreeing with everything Greer did - why would they suddenly change their opinions and not go with him?
And .. please stop repeating the "proxy" statement - we can all read it once and get the message. No one is arguing who or what a "proxy" is. We are arguing that Michael was NOT THE PROPER PERSON - AS AN "ESTRANGED HUSBAND" WITH ANOTHER WIFE AND CHILDREN. And .. we agree that the proper person should have been her parents.
But .. as usual .. when convenient to the left - the sanctity of marriage was to be upheld at all costs - even if the spouse was suspected of being a batterer - that consideration was never investigated in determining the appropriateness of the person chosen as a "guardian". Terri's X-rays when she was admitted to the hospital showed multiple bone franctures. That alone should have been suspicion enough for Greer to challenge the husband as guardian.
You said: "I find it hard to believe that so many judges would intentionally violate the law".
I don't find it hard to believe at all. Judges have been ruling from the bench for years. And .. the left's only power source is these activist judges. It's no mystery at all as to why they would all stick together. They know the public is getting wise to the fact that these judges have been acting outside of their scope of authority and jurisdiction for years - and quite frankly we're sick of it.
And .. what most people are ignoring - and I have stated many times - the appeals courts only LOOKED AT THE COURT'S PROCESS OF THE CASE [which I'm not disputing] - BUT THEY DID NOT REVIEW THE FACTS OF THE CASE - which Congress and the President requested the federal courts do; the legislation gave them jurisdiction to "REVIEW THE FACTS" of THE CASE. Now .. we have a statement from the 11th circus judge saying that congress did not have any authority to tell them what to do (but Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America) does say that Congress determines JURISDICTION. Obviously, this learned judge did not know this information, which renders him an unlikely candidate to even be a judge.
It wasn't Felos who did a better job - it was the left that leaned toward Felos, thereby giving him the edge with the public, by making falacious statements about Terri's condition. I don't have enough fingers to count the media outlets who completely misled the public about her condition - and gleefully allowed Felos to try to glorify STARVING HER TO DEATH as somehow beautiful and serene.
You said: "If Judge Greer kept records from being presented that would be an issue that is appropriate to review on appeal."
I agree - and although several nurses gave affidavits [which I have read] concerning how Michael treated Terri - denied her rehab even though a jury had awarded money for it - how he always required he be left alone and the door locked when he visited Terri - after his visits .. how the nurses found Terri in hypoglycemic shock and empty viles of insulin were found in trash .. while tests on Terri's blood sugar levels showed an overdose of insulin in her system - how a nurse who recorded these circumstances found that her statements about it had been REMOVED from the computer records regarding Terri's care - how Michael said, "when is this bitch gonna die" - how Michael would call and ask, "is it dead yet".
No self-respecting judge (after reading those affidavits) should allow that type of person to be the guardian of a dog - let alone a disabled person. And because the judge chose not to believe these nurses who saw Terri on a daily basis - it seems to me the judge was providing lots of leeway to the husband and denying the affidavits of the nurses to have any standing in the case.
I believe it was stated in the records of the case that Greer disallowed the affidavits because they were submitted TOO LATE - which was a lie.
We do agree that the case should have been "reviewed" - but as I have stated earlier - this did not take place - the only thing the appeals courts did was review THE PROCESSES GREER USED - NOT THE FACTS OF THE CASE UPON WHICH HE RULED.
I saw the court order from judge Greer saying that the funds could be used for attorneys fees - and it even listed the persons who would receive the monies. Most of them turned out to be affiliated with the Hospice is some way. This is very, very troubling. I do hope it is determined his action in this regard was illegal - and all those people have to return the money to the trust. Of course, now that Terri's dead - I don't suppose that will happen either - because the husband would get the money anyway and just give it back to the lawyers. [sigh ..]
Please stop assuming that these judges are god-like and have the best of intentions. THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS WITH LIKES AND DISLIKES AND AGENDAS AND PREJUDICES - just like the rest of us. To ascribe some sort of superior status to these people is what the left has been promoting for years and years - in order to give the judges standing to legislate from the bench and be presumed as having the authority to do so.
Thankfully, this arrogant overreaching by the courts is going to be challenged by Congress - and hopefully it will not take tens of years to get it done.
I'm not going to talk about this any more, because I just keep repeating myself - and people just keep asking the same questions. These are my opinion - and nobody is required to believe them.
I wanted Terri to live and I do believe that the courts, especially the federal appellate courts and the liberal members of the Supreme Court of the US are legislating from the bench. Their decision on abortion and religion, and gay rights have not only been baseless in Constitutional law, but these judges have imposed their own liberal agenda to create rights that only Congress should have the power to create; having said that I will try to respond to your post:
Greer has been the LEADER on all these issues - with the appeals courts agreeing with everything Greer did - why would they suddenly change their opinions and not go with him?
I know that some of the judges did not agree with the outcome, but there were no legal errors upon which the courts could reverse. I do not believe that every judge who reviewed the decision was corrupt. The statute gives the judge no discretion to substitute the parents for the husband.
We are arguing that Michael was NOT THE PROPER PERSON - AS AN "ESTRANGED HUSBAND" WITH ANOTHER WIFE AND CHILDREN.
I certainly agree that the parents should have been making the decisions for Michael. The only legal consequences of Michael’s conflicting interests is that the Judge would have the discretion to weigh his credibility in light of the circumstance. The judge would not have the discretion under the law as written to disqualify Michael. The law should be amended to give the probate judge that discretion.
appropriateness of the person chosen as a "guardian”. Terri’s case was not one where a guardian would be appointed according to the applicable Florida statute. I have posted the statute that deals with that situation. In Terri’s case the statute provides that the husband has the right to be the “proxy”, I do not mean to insult you but you said:
please stop repeating the "proxy" statement - we can all read it once and get the message.
I’m sorry but you didn’t get the message or you would know the difference between the appointment of a guardian and a ‘proxy”. Reread what I posed please.
It's no mystery at all as to why they would all stick together. They know the public is getting wise to the fact that these judges have been acting outside of their scope of authority and jurisdiction for years - and quite frankly we're sick of it.
I hope you are right about the public. If they are becoming educated it is only because of all the conservative news programs, websites, and talk shows. The MSM only try to discredit conservative judges like Scalia.
BUT THEY DID NOT REVIEW THE FACTS OF THE CASE
This has been the case for the past 200 years. Appellate courts only review trial error, they do not consider the credibility of the witnesses.
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America) does say that Congress determines JURISDICTION. Yes, but it is limited by states rights. Maybe I will post an article on this issue when I have the time. I’m sorry I can’t elaborate here.
It wasn't Felos who did a better job - it was the left that leaned toward Felos, thereby giving him the edge with the public, by making falacious statements about Terri's condition. I read the opening statements of both attorneys. Ms. Campbell in her opening statement conceded that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state. I have posted an article dealing with the subject of Pamela Campbell. You can do a word search and find it if you wish.
(after reading those affidavits)
Affidavits are not admissible in evidence at the trial, because of the hearsay rule, and the right of confrontation. If the testimony of the witness who executed the affidavits could have been produced at trial “new” evidence rule, which permits the judge to grant a new trial does not apply.
I saw the court order from judge Greer saying that the funds could be used for attorneys fees
Do you know of a web address where I can check it out? If the funds were placed in an account with the Surrogate, it is possible that an order exists. Please let me know more. I’m very interested in knowing.
Please stop assuming that these judges are god-like and have the best of intentions.
I do not make any such assumption. In fact if you read “Men In Black” by Mark Levin, as I did, and I agree with Mr. Levin 100%, you will find concrete examples of how judges are merely human and have alter motives. I do not have enough information to pass judgment on Greer, that’s all I’m saying.
These are my opinion - and nobody is required to believe them. Believe is probably not the word I would use. I believe you, I just can not agree with your legal conclusions. But I want to say that I am convinced that you are sincere, and you are a great American and I am glad to have been able to discuss this topic with you.
Check with The Empire Journal - they seemed to have a lot of info about this case - maybe they can help you.
I'm done!
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.