Posted on 03/31/2005 5:25:20 AM PST by mal
Do you remember a fellow called Robert Wendland? No reason why you should. I wrote about him in this space in 1998, and had intended to return to the subject but something else always intervened — usually Bill Clinton’s penis, which loomed large, at least metaphorically, over the entire era. Mr Wendland lived in Stockton, California. He was injured in an automobile accident in 1993 and went into a coma. Under state law, he could have been starved to death at any time had his wife requested the removal of his feeding tube. But Rose Wendland was busy with this and that, as one is, and assumed there was no particular urgency.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.co.uk ...
In our country that is determined by the courts.
Like Dred Scott?
Did this decision strike down the recently passed law referenced in the decision or is the question still unanswered?
OH, PUHLEEEEZE, I certainly hope you're not trying to draw a parallel between slavery and Terri Schiavo!
What?? An animal?? OMG. I'm beyond words. There is no shortage of these freaks posing as doctors who want to euthanize all but the most perfect among us as decided by them, Nazi-style, to the praise, no less, of others.
OH, PUHLEEEEZE, stop trying red herring. I asked you a question concerning the constitutionality of a law. Here is a hint from the previously cited decision.
Justice Birch----
In the instant appeal, our court and the district court continue to indulge this presumption and decline to address the constitutionality of the law which purports to grant federal jurisdiction.
Then why do you insist on bringing up a red herring? Slavery, Naziism, and all the other over-the-top comparisons to Terri that have been made are emotional arguments unrelated to reality.
Answer the question, is the law we are discussing unconstitutional as determined by the courts?
Unfortunately, with Terri's death the law is rendered moot so it's constitutionality will never be considered in court. I do think that is unfortunate, because a definitive ruling would settle the issue. As it is now, Congress can pass another law of this type again.
Wrong answer. It is constitutional.
In your opinion.
Not just my opinion. What law allowed the Schindlers to recently sue in Federal court, all the way up to the U.S. Supreme court? One that was unconstitutional?
Thanks; that's interesting. . .
Guess again. Read the trial court's openion and the opinion of the appellate court. They both said that for purposes of considering the case they would ASSUME the law was constitutional. The constitutionality of the law was not challenged at that time. Should it have reached that stage, it would very likely have been declared unconstitutional given the highly consistent court rulings. Two out of 13 federal judges does not a majority make.
A brilliant gut-check by Steyn.
Guess again, by hearing the case and not determining the constitutionality they admitted jurisdiction which, according to Birch, cannot be premsumed.
Justice Birch ---
Jurisdiction, however, is a prerequisite to the legitimate exercise of judicial power, and therefore we may not hypothetically assume jurisdiction to avoid resolving hard jurisdictional questions.
I think you've forgotten that Birch wrote a DISSENTING opinion. In other words, it was not the ruling of the court and holds no effect in law.
BINGO! And this is PRECISELY why this issue and abortion are irrefutably linked.
Very good read, thanks for posting the whole thing.
I think you haven't read the decision, because, among other things, Justice Birch is the writer concurring with the MAJORITY opinion("BIRCH, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:").
Can anybody please tell me what in the heck Felos is talking about? I'm serious, thanks.
Interesting. It seems to exclude county officers from the listed exceptions. A shame his people didn't interpret it that way.
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.