Replies

A few random thoughts:

- This situation can be morphed into a counter to the AARP since they were either pro-kill off their members or silent.
-It might be a bit much (just brainstorming folks) but this silence of the democrats can be used as their suggestion as to how to save social security. Kill off the helpless.

-terri should be refered to as one of the helpless. People automatically want to help the helpless.

-I even think that this can be used to do a collateral attack on no fault divorce. It is a bit of a strech, and only a sliver of a victory but it can be workable. One BIG issue here was the infidelity of MSchiavo. Creating a cause of action or automatic PRESUMPTION of a desire for divorce in guardianship cases. If a FULLY CAPACITIED woman could be REASONABLE presumed to not be married to a cheating husband, then that should be used either on the courts own motion or an immediate family's action to petition for divorce. (it would have to be an ongoing relationship, it could not be a fling. I say this in order to get the change through. Our reach must not be greedy. One victory can be expanded later.)

- We need a term of art which says "DO ALL TO KEEP ME ALIVE". Something more than extraordinary measures.

- Tort reform must EXCLUDE any such "civil murders". If an HMO kills for cost cutting then they recieve no protection via tort reform.

- We do want to give standing to parents but we MUST BE CAREFUL TO KEEP MARRIAGE INTACT. We also want to make sure no other faux marriage is given the same import. Thus a civil unions from another state can not be used in another state to kill off someone who has family who will care for them.

- Immediate mediation in the event of a contested situation. Family mediators are good, I have seen them talk reality in cases which looked like certain trials.

- An opposing party CAN challenge an opposing attorney as biased due to an affiliation. Felos' hemlock society membership SHOULD be admissible in order to challenge his ability to allow the parties to reach settlement. (The mediator could give a bias report outlining ALL the parties biases.)

- IN 100% of contested cases, an attorney ad lite SHALL be appointed and SHALL NOT be cherry picked by the judge and pro-death counsel.

-If either party objects to the case being shunted off to a magistrate (a judge lite used in order to deal with docket overloads) then the judge shall hear the case.

-Either party SHALL have the right to demand the trier of fact be a jury when the objective is termination of life. This means we have to develop MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS.

-speaking of model laws. CONSERVATIVES MUST GENERATE MODEL GUARDIANSHIP LAWS TO COUNTER ANY THAT WILL BE PRODUCED BY THE ABA. Conservative MUST get out in front of this curve. We do not want to leave law writing to the leftists.

- When a case has be adjudicated for terminating life, appeals will be mandatory (as in capital cases). Review SHALL be denovo, temporary injunctions SHALL be issued until final order of the appellate courts. (and federal courts)

- We must keep this case and guardianship cases AWAY from the issue of abortion. It will only confuse the goal.

- The goal should be fostering the "culture of life". From this prism all other decisions and policies will flow.

- we want to link any statutory creation of "culture of life" as part of codifying common law and not a new statutory creation. This is a tool of statutory construction. Common law codification gets BROAD interpritations under the law. Statutory new creations are only narrow construction. Narrow contruction opens the door for law games played by Whitmore and Greer.

- we need a "contract for terri's legacy". (or something like that) I think this is better than anything with life or death in the title. Using the name "terri" establishes it concerns the legal travest that before that young woman.

These are just a few brain storm thoughts.

I like a lot of your ideas and have many comments but it's tough to type them up with a broken wrist and a job to keep. :-)

Let me just address one, which I think gets to the core:

The goal should be fostering the "culture of life". From this prism all other decisions and policies will flow.

I think it's not just a "culture of death" that is the problem. It's a culture of "lack of respect for people" and "lack of respect for rights". So...I think we need to foster a culture of respect for rights. One of those rights is life.

That's the basis of our republic. Co-equal rights of Life and Liberty must be respected.

That's where the conservative divide is, though. Many do not really respect life or people...they just want "life at all costs"...which to me is not respectful of an individual's life.