To: peyton randolph
Failure to provide a de novo review despite a statutory mandate to do so.I was listening to Rush this morning and learned that one of the things the congress changed in order to get their bill through was to change the wording. They did not mandate a de novo, because some congress critters were afraid of a mandate. They just asked the judges to take another look from the beginning.
38 posted on
03/31/2005 3:25:03 PM PST by
Spunky
("Everyone has a freedom of choice, but not of consequences.")
To: Spunky
The biggest problem was that Gibbs (the Schindlers' attorney) refused to file this as a de novo case.
In short, he f***ed up his one opportunity to undo his previous f***-ups.
41 posted on
03/31/2005 3:26:23 PM PST by
Poohbah
(I'm in the WPPFF)
To: Spunky
I was listening to Rush this morning and learned that one of the things the congress changed in order to get their bill through was to change the wording. They did not mandate a de novo, because some congress critters were afraid of a mandate. They just asked the judges to take another look from the beginning. Have you read the statute?
62 posted on
03/31/2005 3:34:44 PM PST by
Cboldt
To: Spunky
I believe this was the inherent weakness in the legislation for Terri.
And it let the Federal courts off the hook. They took it and washed their hands of Terri.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson