Posted on 04/05/2005 2:22:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
You told me never to address you again. After this post, I will not address you again. Please leave me alone.
I thought we were talking about TS here, not some other person in a different situation.
Are you sure? Even in Florida, Probate Court follows the Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure, not the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Not under any legal definition of "execution."
>"I'm actually pleased these days when I see a ping and it is only about my typing."<
well, no, actually...
I'm also going to challange your assertion to Jim about Madisons quote, as well! ;^D
-According to Harhard Law Schools Society for Law, Life and Religion; the quote by Madison, that Jim put up is accurate.
;^)
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/sllr/quotes.html
"We've staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us . . . to Govern ourselves according to the commandments of God. The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."-- James Madison
The way lies, dishonesty, and intellectual bloviation go, that was pretty good.
However, your attempt to sidestep again isn't.
The COURT ordered her death, the court is an organ of the state.
Now, did the court order her death or not?
You're being disingenuous. The court was the actor, the decision maker. It's right there in the 2nd DCA excerpt I posted.
Why dissemble, lets just debate the efficacy of probate judges having that power.
As I said above, the ONLY real legal issue in this case is whether she asked not to have life-sustaining care under these circumstances. If she DID, the Michael really was fighting the good fight, no matter how unlikeable the guy may be.
As far as the question of whether she asked, or not - neither you nor I will ever know enough to make any intelligent judgment on that question - and neither you nor I, AFAIK, saw those who testified on the subject under cross-examination. We don't know and we'll never know.
Cross-examination is a funny thing - a crucible for truth. For example, Dr. Hammesfahr can go on TV and let Sean puff him up 70 or 80 times about being a Nobel Prize nominee, and it sounds kinda good. But, when the guy actually gets cross-examined about whether he is a Nobel nominee, he comes off like an idiot. Read it yourself if you don't believe me.
The Court, of course, saw all these folks testify on cross.
Dunno.
But if they'd had their way back in 1910, my grandmother would have been murdered because she had polio.
The Schindlers lawyers did the best they could but not the best that could be done.
Vatican cardinal condemns starving death of Terri Schiavo
``When you deprive somebody of food and water, what else is it? Nothing else but murder,'' Martino said, adding that he was speaking on the case ``according to the teaching of the pope.'' The pontiff has spoken on behalf of providing food and water, even through artificial means, to patients like Schiavo.
she was not near brain dead! Have you ever seen brain dead? They need complete life support. Terri had a small feeding tube
Honestly, do you say this because you know it, or because you believe some stuff you read on the internet that may or may not be true.
Have you read the 2nd DCA opinions? It is beyond me how one could actually read what that court did and call the process "unfair."
And the intents and purposes of the myriad of courts that examined this case. Courts made up of Republicans and Democrats. State and Federal courts.
Is it possible that, maybe, they're right and you're wrong?
Yeah. Dead people say "Stop!".
What happens to people that are not permitted to eat food or drink water?
The Pope is not the Church. AFAIK, the 1980 encyclical is still in force.
That was part of an exchange on where I stand when it comes to letting people in different situations die.
You've been commenting on her scans and her lack of cortex. I thought you might be interested in just how much cortex is necessary to walk, talk and chew gum at the same time. Evidently, I was mistaken.
Don't forget: 'It must be a moral law.'
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.