Posted on 04/04/2005 8:06:29 AM PDT by tessalu
Vice President Cheney says he opposes revenge against judges for their refusal to prolong the life of the late Terri Schiavo, although he did not criticize House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) for declaring that they will "answer for their behavior."
Cheney was asked about the issue on Friday by the editorial board of the New York Post. He said twice that he had not seen DeLay's remarks, but the vice president said he would "have problems" with the idea of retribution against the courts. "I don't think that's appropriate," he said. "I may disagree with decisions made by judges in any one particular case. But I don't think there would be much support for the proposition that because a judge hands down a decision we don't like, that somehow we ought to go out -- there's a reason why judges get lifetime appointments."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Great post and so very true. All of this because Michael would not allow a mother and father to have their daughter who was unwanted by all others in this world.
What you can't grasp is that de novo in the law as written doesn't mean try the whole thing from the beginning. The law did not state that the judge "shall conduct a trial de novo." It said to have an independent appellate determination without regard to previous state appellate court findings (de novo) of "...any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo..." Such claims were made to the court. The court determined those claims, and then denied those claims as being without merit.
Whittemore did his job. No amount of complaining will change that.
Perhaps he honestly believed that his wife would not have wanted that. That is what he (and two witnesses) testified. Consequently, he fought to carry out her wishes.
This may or may not be true, but it is not beyond comprehension.
Yeah, why couldn't those parents just give us and watch their daughter be starved to death?
How unthoughtful of them. After all she was only a "shell", she would never recover, never be useful to us. Why did they have to cause a circus over this - let us kill quietly those we wish not to be bothered with. Let us help a husband kill his wife with state approval without all the circus athmosphere and the right radicals embarrassing us true conservatives.
(of course /sarcasm)
The "law that was passed to re-review the case" applied to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, not Judge Greer's state probate court. It didn't have anything to do with him.
It's not my reality.
Fiscally, I wish he was more conservative, but Congress is more to blame there than the President.
Other than that, I have no beef with him.
""No, of course not. You self-righteous types ...""
Good for you, Wolfstar - - - that's putting tessalu in his (or her) place. Noone should be allowed to disagree with our leaders. When the courts speak, we are to salute. That's what Cheney is saying -- and you are right to chastize tessalu for independent thinking.
So, do you think that Terri being murdered is a good thing?
From unsourced information posted by mercyme on another thread.
Summary-
In 1998, the florida legislature created the Florida Panel on End-of-Life Care for the purpose of revising the 765 statute for end-of-life issues. They were charged with coming up with the findings for changes in the law for the Florida legislature. Their findings were made law
Bill CB/CB/SB 2228, which revised the 765 as of October 1, 1999, also gave the authority to the End-to-Life panel to make findings for the legislature and that these findings were to made into law.
The legislature essentially gave them the authority to dictate to the legislature what changes to put in their bills. So the role of End-of-Life panel was not simply to make recommendations, but had the authority to determine what changes would be made into law.
The 765 law was revised in 1999 to include "end-stage condition" as a reason to withdraw life prolonging procedures along with persistant vegetative state and terminal illness. This was also put into law. Geldart also redefines terminal illness as not just conditions that cause death, but "irreversible" conditions or conditions "with no reasonable chance of recovery". Felos used this definition for the argument that Terri is terminal because she has a "irreversible" neurological condition with no "reasonable hope for recovery".
Geldart also details the the change in law that permitted nutrition and hydration to be considered medical treatment and the changes to life-prolonging procedures in the absence of advanced directives. Project Grace member William Leonard then points out a common scenario in Florida in his article: an elderly couple moves from out of state to Florida and then one spouse dies within a year 's time. Leonard then expands the definition of family to a neighbor, friend or caregiver who is now in the position of articulating the wishes of the elderly person to withdraw medical treatment, rather than "some distant relative".
And indeed the 765 law was changed to allow an "friend" to say that the person wanted life-pronging procedures withdrawn without a written directive. This also effected the outcome of Terri's case. Authors of Project Grace advocate for terminal sedation (Basta), withdraw of nutrition and hydration (Basta), and the refusal of physician to provide "futile" treatment as unethical even with advanced directive asking for treatments (Doty).
They also state that advanced directives providing for treatment should not carry the same weight as directives withdrawing care, and advanced directives should not compel the physican to provide them, regardless if the patient needs them (Doty). Doty is part of the Florida Bioethics Network as well as Project Grace. One of the changes in the law in CB/CB/SB 2228 includes the Bioethics Network as part of the process of withdrawing care. "
Would people PLEASE stop criticizing Cheney? We are supposed to SALUTE when our leaders speak -- we must salute the judges, no matter how harebrained their decisions - - and we must salute Bush and Cheney when they defend the judges against any and all criticism. Get it? Salute, sit down and shut up. That is your duty. Get with the program.
First, prejudicial wording, attempting to influence the answer by the wording of the question, establishing a disputed event in the question. So I won't answer that.
That doesn't affect my argument anyway, which is that the federal courts have ruled exactly as they should have given the law. Any other ruling would have been judicial activism.
Sorry, you can go back to the democrats now.
Gov. Bush is the only one who kept Terri alive for an additional two years and attempted to do so again. President Bush was not required to act at all but did. The GOP also acted although it turned out to be too watered down.
I'll take President Bush over any other possibility out there thank you. I know a good man when I see one.
The judge in this case has acted on the law of the State of Florida. If Floridians think it should be changed, then perhaps they should repeal the PVS statute, which instructs Greer to rule as he did.
Not only are there many questions still lingering about how Terri actually was originally injured, but there are documented cases of abuse of Terri.
You appear to believe that "documented cases" means "rumors floating around on the Internet".
Letting an innocent woman starve to death at the hearsay of a spouse and a spouses' brother, with contrary hearsay statements from other loved ones and not allowing a review by an impartial party doesn't seem to be principled or just.
Florida's PVS law calls for just such hearsay to be taken into account, in the absence of a written living will.
When an impartial party --Richard Pearse-- was introduced to evaluate Terri and he found that there was reason to treat Terri, that there was indeed hope for recovery (though, not a full recovery), and that pulling the plug shouldn't be done, he was "fired" by Michael. The judge upheld that.
Have you read any of the appellate opinions in the case? The appeals court reviewed the procedure Judge Greer adopted, whereby both sides picked two neurologists apiece, and a fifth one was chosen to be neutral. All five examined her, and Judge Greer based his decision that she was in a PVS on their reports.
The judge also sits on the board of this Hospice. That seems to be a conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of a conflict of interest, which as far as a judge is concerned is enough to remove themselves from the case.
Why? The hospice wasn't a party in the action.
Judge Greer has let all kinds of factors (i.e., sentiments) influence his decisions, none of which were principled.
Well, based on the available record, his decision was influenced by independent medical examinations, the testimony of family members, and the laws of the State of Florida. Which unprincipled factors are you referring to?
"Does that mean the voters are Nazi death cultists?"
No, it means the voters were not given all the facts.. considering that the MSM has consistently referred to Terri as "in a coma", "paralyzed", "terminally ill", it's no wonder they don't understand the issues..
Here in California, a judge must recuse himself at first request.. the litigant must then accept the 2nd one appointed to them.
This was not to appeal state determinations. This was for a suit or claim, de novo, in FEDERAL courts. Not a revisit to procedures taken in state courts.
Nice to know that murder by the state does not affect your view of the law allowing it.
If you are antirepublic, what are you doing here?
I think you need to leave!
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.