Skip to comments.
Cheney Opposes Retribution Against Schiavo Judges
Washington Post ^
| April 4, 2005
| Mike Allen & Brian Faler
Posted on 04/04/2005 8:06:29 AM PDT by tessalu
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 421-427 next last
To: antiRepublicrat
The intent of the law was to spur a de novo review of the facts as well as the law in the case. Whittemore reviewed the data from the state court, but could not have a de novo review of the facts in the limited amount of time he took.
To be fair, I have seen it cited on this board that he did what he should do given the pleading submitted to his court. I am an engineer, not a lawyer, so I must plead ignorance on this specific facet of the issue.
61
posted on
04/04/2005 10:15:19 AM PDT
by
MortMan
(CON is the opposite of PRO. Is Congress therefore the opposite of progress?)
To: tessalu
Well Dick that's too damn bad because the black robes have broken the tripartite stool and are running amok.
To: green pastures
doesn't surprise me
they've been making fools of themselves and damaging the goals of FR
To: maine-iac7
Shouldn't that be: Many other judges looked at refused to look at and only rubber-stamped this over the years? The entire judicial system of the State of Florida is corrupt, deciding to throw away all law, precedent and rules of judicial procedure in order to kill one vegetable that few knew about until the media circus started.
Get out your tin foil hats everyone.
To: maine-iac7
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? That's why we have appeals. Over a dozen in this case.
To: srweaver
In the end, the judge even forbade Mr. Schiavo from putting Terri's feeding tube back in if he chose to do so. In the end, Greer even forbade ANY method of feeding he food and water - for they knew she could very probably, from past testimony, eat and drink in the normal manner.
are they saying GrimGreer was constrained by law to so order?
Show me the law...
66
posted on
04/04/2005 10:19:28 AM PDT
by
maine-iac7
("...BUT YOU CAN'T FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME." Lincoln)
To: antiRepublicrat
The fact that he was on it to the end shows there was no reason for recusal. That's your spin on it. The fact of the matter is Greer broke laws; you spit on those as well as the established case law presented above.
67
posted on
04/04/2005 10:21:41 AM PDT
by
nicmarlo
To: tessalu
The judges in the Schiavo case should be stripped of their positions and publicly humiliated.
68
posted on
04/04/2005 10:21:42 AM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
To: tessalu
This has just got to stop! If we want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, we must fight for it. If we do not fight, we will lose our most basic freedom, the right to live! and this needs to be reposted and reposted
69
posted on
04/04/2005 10:21:54 AM PDT
by
maine-iac7
("...BUT YOU CAN'T FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME." Lincoln)
To: antiRepublicrat
The Florida Supreme court had no qualms about ignoring both the facts and the law and handing the nation over to the Gorons in 2000.
FISH ROT FROM THE HEAD.
To: pa mom
There was not strong and convincing evidence that she had wanted her feeding tube pulled. As a matter of fact there was more compelling evidence to dispute that she did want her feeding tube pulled.
The evidence MS (scumbag) presented was here say as the same with his siblings. It was after the fact of receiving a major settlement to provide care for her for the rest of her life.
But the judges refused to listen to any other evidence. This cost a woman her life. Even if a criminal was going to be executed they would rehear the evidence in the case most of the time. They did not uphold their constitutional duty. And this one can not be fixed for Terri. It is to late.
I am sick of these punk judges making laws instead of interpreting them as they were suppose to.MCD
71
posted on
04/04/2005 10:22:09 AM PDT
by
MSCASEY
(Our God is an Awesome God! Please come soon Lord.)
To: the invisib1e hand
well, ought not judges be accountable?They can't be held accountable now. Cheney can say anything he wants to and so can Tom DeLay the courts have ruled that only their opinions are law. Perhaps Cheney is just recognizing the writing on the wall. As an officer of the Executive Branch and the Legislative what he thinks doesn't matter.
72
posted on
04/04/2005 10:22:58 AM PDT
by
TigersEye
(Are your parents Pro-Choice? I guess you got lucky! ... Is your spouse?)
To: antiRepublicrat; maine-iac7
How easily you forget the Florida Supreme Kangaroo Court in 2000, which made up new laws as it went along. Were you wearing tin-foil then, too?
73
posted on
04/04/2005 10:23:16 AM PDT
by
nicmarlo
To: maine-iac7
I'm saying the opposite... the bounds I am describing are the ones that have clearly been exceeded, e.g. the death sentence order and commandeering the local police department.
74
posted on
04/04/2005 10:23:48 AM PDT
by
thoughtomator
("The Passion of the Opus" - 2 hours of a FReeper being crucified on his own self-pitying thread)
To: MortMan
The intent of the law was to spur a de novo review of the facts as well as the law in the case. Then maybe they should have written that into the law. Except they didn't, because the senators specifically said they were going to leave everything up to the judge's discretion.
To be fair, I have seen it cited on this board that he did what he should do given the pleading submitted to his court.
He did. The law said to review allegations of abuse of her rights. The Schindlers alleged, he reviewed, and denied. I'm not a lawyer either, but I read his ruling, which included transcripts from the Senate debate of the bill and the clearly explained reasoning behind everything. It's like he wrote the decision knowing lots of laymen would read it since all the other decisions I've read are written more for lawyers. The decision was convincing that he did what he was supposed to do -- no more, no less, as I'd hope any judge would do.
To: lugsoul
The legislature thought it was a good idea or it wouldn't be in the statutes. It really doesn't matter what I think.
76
posted on
04/04/2005 10:26:02 AM PDT
by
tutstar
( <{{--->< Impeach Judge Greer http://www.petitiononline.com/ijg520/petition.html)
To: green pastures
I thought the sarcasm was obvious without the tag. Apparently not.
77
posted on
04/04/2005 10:26:55 AM PDT
by
lugsoul
(Wild Turkey)
To: tessalu
"have problems" &
"I don't think that's appropriate," &
"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."
Seems Cheney may not think he is quite definitely against Delay's statement that he has not heard and that may not think he is quite definitely against what Delay as yet unknown plans on doing.
Can anyone say: create story by soliciting comments and providing context?
78
posted on
04/04/2005 10:26:58 AM PDT
by
DBeers
(†)
To: mikeus_maximus
...exactly what kind of conservative is he, again?"""
Shhh! You're not supposed to criticize Bush or Cheney.
To: antiRepublicrat
BTW, the filed under 38.10. Now you'll spin it around some other way, I'm sure.
80
posted on
04/04/2005 10:27:38 AM PDT
by
nicmarlo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 421-427 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson