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 ...
No, they did not.
The judges followed the law.
No, they did not.
Greer ILLEGALLY made an order DENYING food or water by natural means (i.e., by her mouth):
“Ordered and Adjudged that Respondents’ Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means is DENIED.”
See: http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/greer_deniesf&w_bymouth.html
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101 provides that necessary and appropriate rehabilitation services and physical/motor skill therapy may not be denied a substantially disabled patient in the United States of America. Cf 28 CFR, Ch 1, Subpart B, Sect 35.130 States "Nothing in the Act or this part authorizes the representative or guardian of an individual with a disability to decline FOOD, WATER, medical treatment, or medical services for that individual."Contrary to Florida Statute, Greer ORDERED Terri's death, based on self-serving hearsay testimony of Michael Schiavo:
765.309 Florida Statute: Mercy Killing of Euthanasia Not Authorized; Suicide Distinguished. -- (1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act of omission to end the life other than to permit the natural process of dying. (2) The withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures from a patient in accordance with any provision of this chapter does not, for any purpose, constitute a suicide.458.326 Florida Statute: Intractable Pain; Authorized Treatment. -- (4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, and no treatment authorized by this section may be used for such purpose.
782.08 Florida Statute: Assisting Self-Murder. -- Every person deliberately assisting another in the commission of self-murder shall be guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s.775.082, s. 775.083 or s.775.084.
Florida's prohibitions against assisted suicide protects not only the terminally ill, but also the disabled, the elderly, the chronically ill, the severely handicapped.
Withholding food and water by mouth is a deliberate act to end life and is prohibited in the Florida statutes.
"Helping" Terri kill herself is assisted suicide and is also prohibited in the Florida statutes.
744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated.--
Contrary to Florida Statute, Greer did not recuse himself, as required, when asked to do so, 5 times by attorneys Anderson/Gibbs:
Florida Statute 38.10, broken five times by not disqualifying himself from the Schiavo case when it was requested. The statute states whenever a party to any action or proceeding makes and files an affidavit stating fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial in the court where the suit is pending on account of the prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant or in favor of the adverse party, the judge shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of causes in which the presiding judge is disqualified.
In addition, Greer violated other laws: Judge Greer Breaks Law To Ensure Death
and see, Schiavogate---The Big Cover-up
The PROCEDURAL aspects were what was reviewed, NOT THE FACTS (what are the facts?). ALL the evidence before Greer, including ALL the evidence Greer threw out THAT FAVORED TERRI'S RIGHT TO LIVE, i.e., the testimony given by all of Terri's friends, family, nurses, doctors, the bone scan and report of Dr. Walker, including his deposition (which Greer forbid as evidence as Felos filed a motion requesting such), and medical tests, the deposition of Michael Schiavo (which Greer did not allow, after Felos filed a motion blocking such deposition, several times). ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS, TESTIMONIES, AND DEPOSITIONS ARE THE FACTS OF THE CASE. Every Florida judge who "reviewed" this case, either RUBBER-STAMPED what judge Greer said, or REFUSED to take the case. The federal courts also did not comply with the law, it REFUSED to take the case on de novo review and, once again, merely looked at procedures.
Of course, there may be a reason why the Florida District Court of Appeals and Florida Supreme Court rubber-stamped or refused to over-rule judge Greer:
Charges of Unethical DCA Activity Surface in Schiavo Case
and see
Schiavo Case Tangled Web of Deception, Corruption
I believe in the rule of law, but ALL rules of law must apply TO ALL in order for there to be a RULE OF LAW, in order for there to be justice. In this case, following the rule of law did not occur, which is why it led to an unjust and barbaric end called murder via dehydration.
That's because Schiavo used his right as proxy to request that the judge make the decision. Once he did that, it was out of his hands.
Well, he better be concerned when Republicans in his district think less of him for intervening in the Schiavo case.
If he pushes this too far, he could easily lose in 2006. He won with only 55% of the vote in 2004.
Thank you for pointing that out!
Even I knew that, and I've known for a long time that not all judges get life-time appointments, maybe it's only federal ones who do. I'd really, really think VP Cheney would know that.
Recusal is up to the presiding judge. Failure to recuse is subject to appeal. He was never disqualified, so it's safe to assume that the appeals court found no reason to do so if the Schindlers did indeed appeal Greer's decision. The law was followed, so by definition there was no wrongdoing in this area.
I would rather get something accomplished between now and 2006 and let the chips fall where they may. Having a majority just for the majority's sake is meaningless unless you do something with it.
Besides, Republicans have always won by being conservative, not trying to appease the middle-left.
Whittemore addressed intent in his rulings. But if you mean the intent was to force a judge to deliver a specific decision, I'd say that intent is blatantly unconstitutional. That's why the text of the law didn't force Whittemore's decision.
With regard to whether this should have been heard by a jury:
I don't know what the law is in Florida, but where I come from, matters like this are started by a petition of some sort. Petitions and motions are generally heard by a judge -- they are non-jury. Also, again, where I come from, in most other civil cases, you have the OPTION to request a trial by jury -- you don't have to have one.
As to "revenge" against the judge or judges involved -- Revenge is a bad thing. I agree with those who say it would be better to try to have the law changed. As far as I can tell, most of the judges involved in this whole mess ruled according to the law in place.
However, I fear that this whole circus will cause a major split between the factions of government -- so much so, that any attempts to change the law at the legislative and/or executive level will be struck down by the judiciary. Sadly, the losers in this upcoming pissing match will be us -- the citizenry.
OK, Dick, you win.
Retire and go fishing.
I guess there is nobody at all in the republican party worth a damn.
Let's just bring on the Evil and we all meet up later at the camps.
That's like saying that no matter how wrong a judge rules - no matter how out of control - he is, in essence, "God" and cannot be questioned?
I am extremely upset and concerned that Cheney would say this.
We need to continue swamping DeLay and the other senators - IMORTANT other senators know we are behind them investigating this...
We let this get swept under the rug at our peril ... our freedoms, even our right to life, are being undermined, drip by slow drip.
Shouldn't that be: Many other judges looked at refused to look at and only rubber-stamped this over the years?
The Vice President has it WRONG...it is NOT revenge, it is seeking the truth and punishing those who DID wrong. If it was wrong to go after wrongdoers, our jails would be empty.
I don't think the administration has a CLUE what this has been about or how urgent it is.
I'm sorry, but that is not correct. Recusal is mandatory within the language written by the legislators. The word "shall" leaves no option, permits no deviancy. It is an imperative. The language is clear:
Whenever a party to any action or proceeding makes and files an afidavit . . . the judge SHALL proceed no ruther. . . but another judge SHALL be designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of causes in which the presiding judge is disqualified."Once a litigant 'makes and files' the affidavit, the judge has no further jurisdiction to proceed." This proposition that the filing of the affidavit alone removes the judge from jurisdiction over the matter is supported by a long line of Florida cases." In Re: Amendment to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160, Florida Supreme Court Case No. SC03-2169; also see Swepson v. Call, 13 Fla. 337 (1869); Suerez v. State, 115 S. 519, 524 (Fla. 1928); Dickenson v. Parks, 140 S. 459, 462 (Fla. 1932); Escalona v. Wisotsky, 781 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 2000); Breakstone v. MacKenzie, 561 So.2d 1164 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1989); Stimpson Computing Scale Co. v. Knuck, 508 So.2d at 484; Wishoff v. Polen In and For Broward County, 468 So.2d 1035 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 1985); Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Publix Super Markets 814 So.2d 1249 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 2002); Rogers v. State, 630 So.2d 513 (Fla. 1993); Dura-Stress, Inc. v. Law, 634 So.2d 769 (Fla.App. 5 Dist. 1994); CH2M Hill Southeast, Inc. v. Pinellas County, 598 So.2d 85 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1992); Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.432; The trial judge may not debate the allegations contained in the motion, pass on the truth of its allegations or adjudicate the question of disqualification. See Townsend v. State, 564 So.2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
Oh really? Then how come it failed miserably? are you saying Greer had NO choice but to "allow" Terri to be murdered?
Got a reference in the laws for this?
And some of us are watching Washington, too...
That county is the headquarters of Scientology - does that give you a hint?
For someone who is strongly aligned with the WPPFF, I find it odd that you would bring out such emotionally charged words as "Nazi" and "death cultists".
38.10 is for prejudice, and have the Schindlers filed such a petition? Or did they go under 38.02, the statute for generally asking a judge to recuse himself, which is up to the judge, subject to appeal.
In any case, had the Schindlers asked Greer to recuse himself, and they could back up the petition, Greer would not have been on the case anymore. The fact that he was on it to the end shows there was no reason for recusal.
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.