Posted on 05/07/2005 7:03:09 AM PDT by veronica
bookmarking
Then what do you do when the state is violating the state constitutional rights of its citizens as mentioned in the Fla constitution above?
And, even if one did not agree with the federal government taking action, surely one could still voice their outrage at the injustice to a disabled woman and the precedents that are set by this "law".
Whatever the disagreements over different parts of this case, we all have seen that now the state will require the death of one they judge to be in a particular medical situation (even with differences of opinion) and that no matter who wants to care for that patient, they will kill it.
And, do any of you think this is a "good thing"?
I just don't think the state/government has the right to tell me a relative has to die because of ..............
And what exact rights of this woman would this be that the Florida Supreme Court, multiple federal appeals courts, and the United States Supreme Court didn't see but somehow you mysteriously discovered?
And, even if one did not agree with the federal government taking action, surely one could still voice their outrage at the injustice to a disabled woman and the precedents that are set by this "law".
As I've been saying from the beginning, you disagree with the law, get the law changed within your respective state. I have no problem with that
And I'm not sure handing this patient over to people that would keep this person alive, even if they knew the patient's wish was to die just out of selfishness and the deluded joy they receive from keeping the patient alive at all costs
You certainly have the Micheal Schiavo tone in what you say. Almost exact in fact. I am wondering, did you do someone in like he did? In other words, a guilty conscience perhaps?
What Scalia cautioned against was a Federal imposition of a burden of persuasion, where an individual has a burden of persuading the state to permit certain action. Essentially, that a state is in a better position to set the hurdle wherever it wants to, high or low, in PREVENTING a person from shortening their own life.
The Cruzan case didn't address the situation where some aspect of the state government appratus is accused of misconstruing a patient's wishes. That legal ground is unplowed.
Ah, but you statists couldn't give a crap less what conservative judges believe.
I think everybody wants the courts to "get it right," in a case like this, to accurately discern and construe the patient's wishes. That isn't a conservative or liberal notion, and in no way implies a tendency towart statism or libertarianism. Courts are charged with accurately discerning the fact basis, then applying the law. The law is designed to have certain (known and predictable) biases that come into play when the facts are less certain. All of that legal panorama informs our decisions, paper trail (or absence of paper trail), etc.
You want activist judges that will rule how you feel at the moment on an issue. You care less for the Constitution than the Democrats do if it gets in your way.
I think the notion of judicial activism is misplaced in the Schiavo case. No new law was made, therefore, by definition, no judicial activism. The judicial activism that may have set the stage for the Schiavo case is the Florida Supreme Court's Browning case. It (Browning) didn't really affect the outcome of Schiavo, inasmuch as Greer's error is more likely misconstruction of Terri's wishes and is not misapplication of the holding of Browning. That is, if any Florida case represents judicial activism in this area, it is Browning, not Schiavo.
For you, that's what Terri's case was REALLY all about, what YOU WANT. Just as I thought.
You have ABSOLUTELY NO MORAL RIGHT to ask another person to do something immoral for you. It's TOO BAD if that's what you want.
In the immortal words of Mick Jagger, "YOU CAN'T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT.....YOU CAN'T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT..."
"Look, do what you want,"
Many people would NOT want to live in a coma or PVS (of which Terri was neither). But they recognize it would be IMMORAL to ask someone else to kill them. They also understand it would be IMMORAL to kill themselves.
Immoral? I think it's immoral to keep a body functioning when the soul is gone. ..so don't you dare tell me what's moral. I can throw that argument right in your face. Because you didn't know what Terri Schiavo wanted either. This is what YOU wanted. So get off your freakin high horse.
Your not even funny. She's not here anymore. Do you understand what that means? SHE'S NOT HERE TO HAVE ANYTHING! You the death cult and Michael can't HURT her anymore! Thank God!
She, Terri, has not been here for 15 years.
"Because you didn't know what Terri Schiavo wanted either."
It is YOU who didn't know what Terri Schindler wanted. Neither did her husband who stated it over and over again to three different people.
I happen to believe that for someone who SO WANTED to die, Terri exhibited an awfully strong will to live. I wanted what was JUST amd MORAL for Terri. The evidence strongly suggests that's what Terri wanted too.
"I think it's immoral to keep a body functioning when the soul is gone."
You knew the SOUL of Terri Schiavo was gone???? You know the souls of people in comas and PVS (of which Terri was neither) are gone?????? The soul of the fireman who recently came out of a coma was gone???? And now it's suddenly back??? LOL!
Then you KNOW something that ALL of humanity doesn't KNOW. Now that's a mighty HIGH HORSE, LOL! Hope you can find a ladder high enough to climb off THAT one.
Yes you caught me. Anytime I have a family member in the hospital, I ask the doctor to unhook any tubes or life giving support just to see what happens. If you had bothered to read the Wolfson report, which it is apparent you haven't, you would recognize my statement is a paraphrase from the report on the Schindlers' opinion of what they would do if they were in control of Terri Schiavo
Your absolutly right-a mothers right to murder her baby shall not be infringed.
I'll bet he loved you too
Keep telling yourself that one, HILDY. It will continue to do wonders to assuage your conscience.
Why don't you put your compassion into people who really need it...children who are alive and really need help. It's easier to do it this way, isn't it?
Well, now I guess that's supposed to make you "cool'" quoting an aging druggie rock star to make a point on a thread about a serious matter. Why not The Who, or Pink Floyd, or really get serious and throw in Jimi Hendrix while you're at it. Oh, and you seem to be having a problem with your caps lock.
He violated numerous court orders. Nobody seems to care when he does so.....
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.