Posted on 04/09/2005 3:48:54 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Top conservative leaders gathered here a week after Terri Schiavo's death to plot a course of action against the nation's courts, but much of their anger was directed at leading Republicans, exposing an emerging crack between the party's leadership and core supporters on the right.
And yesterday they issued an ''action plan" to take their crusade for control of the nation's courts well beyond Senate debates over judicial nominees, pressing Congress to impeach judges and defund courts they consider ''activist" and to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts over some sensitive social matters -- a strategy opposed by many leading Senate Republicans.
''This is not a Democrat- Republican issue; it is a liberal-conservative issue," Rick Scarborough, a Baptist minister and chair of the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration, sponsor of the gathering, said in an interview. ''It's about a temporal versus eternal value system. We are not going away."
In the charged battle over the future of the nation's courts, conservatives so far are outgunned financially. Last week, liberal groups mounted a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign designed to build support for the filibuster and thwart Senate confirmation of nominees they consider extremists who will pursue a ''radical agenda and favor corporate interests over our interests," as one MoveOn.org radio advertisement intoned.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Okay - you win. I give up.
Well state law made Michael Schiavo Terri's guardian; that courts continually validated his guardian status.
In spite of all the unsubstantiated and wild accusations of spousal abuse etc by those who sought to intervene. NONE of these accusations ever amounted to anything.
I suspect they we all baseless or they would have resulted in more than just nothing.
Thank you.
But we don't have anything as concrete as handwriting here to base our judgment on...
State law does not say the spouse automatically is responsible. It can't. What about abusive relationships? The law is all about finding and carrying out the patient's wishes.
Five people testified regarding Terri's wishes. IMO, the testimony does not reach the standard of "clear and convincing" that Terri would choose to terminate basic care for herself.
In Westinghouse Elect. Corp., Inc. v. Bay County Energy Systems, Inc., 590 So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court stated: Clear and convincing evidence requires that the evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the testimony must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established [cboldt comment: and therefore also the falsity or inaccuracy of contrary testimony or evidence].http://www.flabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNJournal01.nsf/0/e2b78b1f5d9e .... <-- LinkAlthough this standard of proof may be met where the evidence is in conflict, In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So. 2d 258, 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), approved, 568 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990), it seems to preclude evidence that is ambiguous.
The details of the various points of testimony are discussed in many of the Terri threads. I don't have a handly collection of links for that material. The gist is that Michael, his brother, and his sister-in-law all testified that Terri said "wouldn't want to live like that" (note that "like that is extremely indefinite, and reflects viewing a person dying of a disease and hooked up to ventilator). Terri's mom and a friend of Terri's testified regarding comments Terri made about the Quinlan case, where Terri expressed disagreement with taking Quinlan off life support, "where there's life, there's hope." Mom and friend's testimony were dismissed by Greer because he attributer Terri's age to be 11 (the date Quinlan was taken off respirator), but it's at least as likely as not that mom and friend's recollection that Terri was in her teens (18 or 19) at the time of the exchange is in fact correct.
There are other pieces of evidence, such as the 7 year delay in recall on Michael's part; the timing of recall relative to receiving med-mal awards; and (not considered) testimony of a girlfriend of Michael's where she testified "Michael said (after Terri's collapse), 'How the hell would I know what she wanted? We never talked about that.'" The totality of evidence just doesn't seem to meet the "clear and convincing" standard defined by Florida case law, cited above.
Once a trial judge reaches a finding of fact, in this case, the finding being that Terri would withhold her own food and water given the choice, the burden of proof shifts to the other side. Appellate courts in civil law don't have the same reversal powers that criminal appelate courts have.
As an aside, the PVS discussion is a red herring. Florida law permits starving any incapacitated person to death, whether or not they are comatose or PVS. Google "Guardianship of Browning, 543 So. 2d 258" and you will find the FLorida Supreme Court's review of that case. The first few paragraphs describe the necessary conditions to deny food and water to a patient who previously expressed a will to stop eating and drinking.
And, btw, it's not true that every person in New York agrees with government spending as it does.
I never said every person in NY agrees with the current level of state government spending in NY. See above...
In such cases the courts can revoke the spouse's status a guardian.
But until this happens, state law names the spouse as guardian.
What does "most of them are Democrats" have to do with a representative representing their constituents? Do you not think that there are a vast amount of conservatives/Republicans in New York, especially upstate? New York, as a whole votes like the rest of the nation, as a whole: it is overwhelmingly conservative, except for pockets which end up controlling everything in the entire state.
I agree. But I try anyway!
"Given that the Libertarian Party took the murderers' side in this case, I would tend to think not. But it might boost the Constitution Party."
Actually I was referring to the libertarian leaning republicans running off to the libertarian party. But as Sam Cree pointed out, there are stirs on the other side of that fence too, which would be what you are referring to, or maybe both will run off at the same time and we'll have a three party system and a Democrat president and congress.
Like I said, I doubt it but you never know.
There are serious failings with the current party for both camps.
The Christian Right is seeing a lot of vocal championing of their causes that result in.... well not much. For the most part it has been a lot of talk and little success to this point. While the libertarian camp has seen a ballooning federal government, rising debt and intrusion into personal matters.
Come to think of it, who exactly are they all working for working for anyway?
If Judge Greer were to deem the 'will' to be authentic, and were to award the estate based upon that, would such a decision be legal?
"Go on." Guardianship is not, on its own, determinative of the outcome of this case. What is the duty of the guardian?
If it was really a forgery as you stated, the decision would still be legal, but misguided and wrong.
We all know that one can conform to the letter of the law and still violate the underlying principles of right and wrong.
BUT I still don't agree that there is anything in the Terri case that compares to a proven forgery.
The Democrat controlled assembly and Republican controlled house usually compromise. They both represent their own constituents. Then they both compromise.
New York, as a whole votes like the rest of the nation, as a whole: it is overwhelmingly conservative, except for pockets which end up controlling everything in the entire state.
The rest of the country is overwhelmingly conservative?? LOL! In 2000 the majority of voters in the U.S. voted for either Gore or Nadar. It wasn't much better in 2004.And that's after the president had to sell his soul on Medicare. NYS is similar. If you take away NYC, you still have Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester who together voted for Kerry. Upstate, the Binghamton, Syrucuse, Albany, Buffalo, Plattsburgh and Cornell areas voted Democrat.
Fair enough, but I was still interested in your answer to the other question, because it gets to the heart of all the other matters in this case. I recognize that your evaluation of the facts of the case differs from mine. The legal issue, however, is trickier, and I appreciate your answering my question.
You state, If it was really a forgery as you stated, the decision would still be legal, but misguided and wrong. Here, I think we differ. I would posit that if someone perpetrates a fraud on the court for the purpose of winning a judgement, any action taken to use that judgement constitutes further fraud. It may be that the fraud is never proven, in which case the person would get away with his crimes, but there is a big difference between actions which are legal and crimes which are never prosecuted.
In the scenario as proposed, the fraudulent 'heir' is almost certainly aware that the will is fake. If a prosecutor were to someday prove that (not only that the will was fake, but the 'heir' knew it to be so) the person should be prosecuted not only for presenting false evidence, but also for whatever acts of theft he committed after winning his judgement. That the court approved the action he knew to be illegal should not make the action legal.
You and I differ as to whether Michael Schiavo perpetrated any fraud upon Greer's court. It would appear, however, that we also disagree as to how it matters. I would argue that it matters a great deal, since Michael relied upon Greer's court orders to do things he otherwise could not legally do. If those orders were obtained fraudulently, that would mean Michael's actions were criminal (more specifically, they would merit a charge of Murder in the First Degree). If you disagree with that notion, then the factual matters would seem to be irrelevant.
Why would any THINKING Christian bother to waste a vote on a Republican again?
Since there is not too many options, WHO do you suggest we should vote for then???
a presumption of the right to LIFE, that cannot be legally taken away ...
No one took away Terri's right to life, but many tried (thankfully unsuccessfully) to take away her right to die. Her parents may not have agreed with her, you may not have agreed with her, but she (like me and most of us if we were confronted by her hellish circumstance) wanted to die.
I think that the "REAL" Winston Churchill would turn over in his grave by your statement??? And, please speak for yourself and NOT for "most of us" about how we should die!!!
Actually I don't know enough to disagree with you. I don't see how any of us could possibly know for sure.
But somebody has to decide and I am willing to leave such matters up to the court.
It would appear, however, that we also disagree as to how it matters. I would argue that it matters a great deal, since Michael relied upon Greer's court orders to do things he otherwise could not legally do. If those orders were obtained fraudulently, that would mean Michael's actions were criminal (more specifically, they would merit a charge of Murder in the First Degree). If you disagree with that notion, then the factual matters would seem to be irrelevant.
Let's face it, if Michael did lie, it could never be proven. At least not in this world.
So forget the First Deg Murder charges.
But in my opinion, even if she didn't specifically state it to Michael, I believe given the opportunity to foresee such a situation, she would have opted NOT to be sustained in this condition by a feeding tube.
Of course this is just my opinion because I wouldn't want to be kept alive by a feeding tube in such a state and I don't think most people would.
However as I've already said, I don't think I could have made the difficult decision to remove her feeding tube. I would have prefered to just turn responsibility over to her parents who were willing to keep her alive no matter what.
That still doesn't mean it would be the best thing for Terri or what she really would have wanted given the choice.
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.