Posted on 06/19/2005 8:19:40 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Geez. You forgot communist, socialist, and baby eater.
Actually, it was a statement by Felos. He said that the State had ordered the feeding tube removed and MS couldn't stop it if he wanted to. There was a huge brouhaha on FR. Don't you remember?
Your comment was off-topic, something that also happens every day at FR, and at other forums as well.
You believe that ignorant POS? Figures.
It's off-topic to comment on what the lounge lizard put on her headstone?
Two issues were involved. 1) was she PVS and 2) was there clear and compelling evidence that she wanted her life ended. With regard to the second, we have to ask about the sufficiency of the statute and whether the judge properly applied it. With regard to the first, we have to ask about the definition of PVS and whether doctors properly diagnosed her. IMHO, the statute gives the trial judge too much discretion. He jumped through all the right judicial hoops and therefore the judge-club could do nothing but circle the wagons to guard THEIR rights. So far as PVS is concerned, it is at best a term of art and the facts are as open to multiple interpretation as the number of doctors who can be brought in, on a par with a psychiatric diagnosis.
I'd check the hysterics if I were you. Frankly I didn't want the woman to die, but I also respect the standard of federalism above everything else. That line was crossed and any party that does that, no matter who's leading them, has lost my support completely.
Well, if "Michael" never "forgot" what Terri "told" him, what's your "point"?
You are pretty dense, aren't you? Your boy is a liar, once he got his loot and his new screwpal, he "remembered" Terri wanted to die. But you know that already.
IOW's "Patooey on the Constitution..." which is the Supreme Law of the Land. Good riddens.
As for federalism, how was "the line crossed" ? If federal court review is granted to death row criminals under the 14th Amendment, why shouldn't federal court review be granted in disputed cases where the state has imposed a death sentence on an innocent?
Oh my. I'd certainly hate to be ignorant.
Why don't you educate me as to what the court really did? I could use a good laugh.
I read the court order, currently have it opened in another window ready to "copy and paste" in response to your worthless answer -- assuming you post one.
No reading comprehension in some of these folks is there.
Oh well...Im off to hack at a golf ball for 18...
Well contrary to the cracked arm of 'conservatism' of which you seem to belong, the Constitution is merely a set of limitations on the national government. The Framers understood certain questions would come to the forefront within the respective states which is why we have the 10th Amendment. As I said, if Florida wants to muck about with the lives of its citizens, that's fine with me. But do not destroy what is left of the checks and balances between the national government and the respective state governments for your silly crusade.
Oh and learn to spell. It may help your argument..
Because the 14th Amendment was stretched for that power in and of itself. Now you're going to argue why not stretch it a little more? That's conservative....
This was a civil case, not a criminal one. The 10th Amendment is clear. I realize Republicans inherently hate that Amendment considering their auspicious party origin but are we now to take intrastate medical civil cases all the way to the Supreme Court because we disagree with the outcome?
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is one of several abstention doctrines that federal courts follow. This one holds that federal courts should not hear claims that essentially ask the court to review the decisionmaking in a state case. The rationale is, basically, that the U.S. Supreme Court is available to review state court decisions that involve federal issues (like due process), and there is no need to turn the lower federal courts into a review system for state decisions.
Now, in the case of those in state or federal custody, Congress has enacted statutes that expressly require federal courts to hear claims that ask for state proceedings to be reviewed. In those cases, Rooker-Feldman does not apply.
As you probably know, Congress has recently been debating whether to adopt a law that would extend the review capacity of lower federal courts to include persons in Terri's circumstances. If that law passed, Rooker-Feldman would not apply, and the court would be able to review the state court proceedings for due process violations. So far, that law has not passed.
And it probably won't.
Wasn't convincing to Michael before the money came in, though, was it? Go ahead. Give me the time line.
Ah! Well, that's different. Why?
According to the Florida State Constitution (and supported by the state supreme court decision in In Re Browning), a patient has the right to refuse medical treatment. Terri had, on at least five different occassions, expressed her desire not to live that way.
The judge in this case was charged by the State of Florida with finding "clear and convincing" evidence as to Terri's wishes in her then current condition.
His ruling reflected his decision, and he ordered the feeding tube removed, thereby honoring the patient's right to refuse treatment.
You got a beef with KDD's comment being off-topic, take it up with him and leave me out of it.
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.