Posted on 01/06/2007 5:52:57 PM PST by wagglebee
The more annoying that the only testimony Greer allowed in mind-reading Terri's "wishes" was by the IN-LAWS -- Michael Schiavo, his brother Scott Schiavo, his SIL Joan Schiavo.
All of whom conferred first with Michael's lawyer, George Felos.
After private meetings with Felos, they all remembered bits of conversation that had been forgotten for eight and ten years. Amazing. And all these snippets of hearsay fit the most up-to-date version of right-to-die privacy law. More amazing! Sheesh, a plot line this bad would get rejected by afternoon soap operas.
Greer disallowed testimony from Terri's father, mother, brother, sister, best friends and priest.
Yes.
If I were DA, I think I would have gone for voluntary manslaughter. Or whatever is appropriate for "assault causing death."
There is quite a lot of material about Michael giving insights into his personality. The material shaped my scenario, but let's save that discussion for another occasion :-)
Nobody has ever explained how this happened, and medical testing found no natural causes. The autopsy report ruled out bulimia and that was Michael's only alibi. I ask our visitors for their assistance solving this mystery, but only one has even replied and that poster had no facts at all.
I also put my own reconstruction out for comment and nobody has yet refuted any point on it. The injuries I mention and the abnormal blood tests are all from evidentiary medical records. The fight between Terri and Michael was conceded by both sides of the family and was known to friends, one of whom urged Terri to spend the night with her for safety sake. Terri might be alive and well today, had she accepted. (Btw, Michael lied about the fight to the police when they arrived. He told them that everything was untroubled and rosy between him and Terri.)
It's theory, no more, no less. I'll amend the thing if someone can show me better, and I'll scrap it if someone can disprove it. If you find any holes in it, fire away. But for the moment, it's the only theory out there that fits ALL the known medical facts. That's extremely difficult to do. In fact, nobody offers any other theory at all any more.
So, visitors, refute it if you can. Suggest something better if you can. Whatever did happen that night must color our view of everything else that occurred. If it turns out that Michael himself caused Terri's injuries, one cannot still sympathize with his efforts later to finish her off. After you know Michael injured her in the first place, you cannot go on believing his whopper that he's only killing Terri because she wants to die. Neither can one go on applauding "due process" when you realize it covering up a murder.
...we have watched as this woman, whose only crime is that she is disabled, is tortured to death by judges, all the way to the Supreme Court.
And keep in mind from the Ralph Nader-Wesley Smith report: "The courts . . . have [also] ordered that no attempts be made to provide her water or food by mouth. Terri swallows her own saliva. Spoon feeding is not medical treatment. This outrageous order proves that the courts are not merely permitting medical treatment to be withheld, they have ordered her to be made dead."
In this country, even condemned serial killers are not executed in this way.
The Federal Government, via the 14th Amendment, had the duty and power to intervene in a state procedure that threatened the rights of a citizen (Terri). (As Dr. Keyes pointed out, Florida's constituion is particularly good in guaranteeing Terri's life, but the Florida judiciary stomped on that.) In failing to protect Terri, Congress and the high courts essentially gutted the 14th Amendment (not that there was much left of it). We are back to Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Law -- only this time, Terri was the disposable chattel property rather than Dred Scott. Amos charges every concurring judge, including every member of SCOTUS, with being "accessories to murder."
Further comments, thoughts and backgrounding by Gary Amos are posted HERE
Abysmal ignorance happens.
"Privacy" is not found anywhere in the United States Constitution...
Try the Ninth Amendment.
So you would exempt nothing in a marriage from the control of the State? Really?
Sexual practices, choices in how to raise their children, all of those are fair game if the State at any time should decide to regulate them?
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
[Matthew 18:2-3, KJV]
Below, a photo of the defenders of wife-murder courageously arresting and handcuffing a child for the "crime" of taking water to Terri as she was dying of thirst.
> Try the Ninth Amendment.
OK, I tried the 9th amendment. Here it is:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Privacy is not mentioned, is it? Keep searching.
The word "privacy" is not in there anywhere...
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
No man can become a law unto himself under the guise of freedom of religion. We do have a right to regulate practice, not belief. Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right.
We are not like the Islamics where a woman and her children are chattel slaves subject to injury or murder at the whims of the husband.
Can you show us an enumerated power to execute a woman convicted of no crime?
Tagline practice, particular for right-to-die advocates visiting to Terri threads...
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Privacy is not mentioned, is it? Keep searching.
Wow. Reading comprehension not high on your school's list of priorities, is it? Let's look at that again.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Pretty clear - just because some of our rights are named in the Bill of Rights does not mean that all of our rights may be found there.
The Constitution is not a list of rights. Never has been.
Some of the Founders were against the idea of a Bill of Rights on principle, fearing that the existence of any listing at all would lead some to infer that the small list was exhaustive. Sadly, they have been proven correct.
Duh. But does this say privacy IS a right? No, it does not. It simply says that privacy MAY BE a right; and that an infinite number of other things MAY BE rights too. That says nothing. An infinite number of rights is legally and intellectually absurd. Ergo, we are right back where we started from. It's not in the Constitution.
You still need a positive legal authority for claiming a specific privacy right. What is your authority for this? We already know it is not enumerated in the Constitution, just as Sir Francis asserted.
Knock off the garbage talk.
Is the right to murder an inconvenient wife also covered by the 9th Amendment? It's not in the Constitution proper.
You still need a positive legal authority for claiming a specific privacy right. What is your authority for this? We already know it is not enumerated in the Constitution, just as Sir Francis asserted.
You've got it backwards - the state needs a compelling reason to insert itself, or the right is retained by a citizen (and once again, lack of enumeration in the Constitution is explictly not an indication that something is not a right).
What is the state's compelling interest in inserting itself in family decisions about legitimate, established courses of medical treatment?
I kinda wish I did. I don't want the state butting in either. But the state has already asserted a claim on patients' lives (sometimes they pay taxes, y'know). The privacy right to refuse treatment must have some real authority to supersede the state's claim. It can't simply be one of an infinite number of inchoate "rights" that one can make up at one's convenience. By that standard, your right to privacy would be equal to, no better than, no worse than, your right to feed my wife catnip (which, I'm sorry to tell you, doesn't work). All the 9th Amendment does is not rule out either of them, or zillions of others.
The 9th Amendment doesn't establish anything to be a right. It says what it says -- some things are permitted to be rights even if not covered here. What those rights might be remains an open question. It is to be settled by further legalities later on. Therefore we still need an authority for a specific privacy right so compelling that it overrules the existing state and federal claim to protect the patient's life (fifth and fourteenth amendments of the federal constitution).
You're preaching to the choir :-)
Keep in mind that killing your wife is not "treatment" under any definition.
The answer may shed a great deal of light on the husband's asserted right to kill her later on. It doesn't look so hot when, in one's zeal to score a political point, one goes to bat for a Scott Peterson or an O.J. Simpson. In this case, there is a very real possibility that Michael Schiavo will confess someday to injuring Terri, and a greater possibility that one of his accomplices (there are many) will talk. That would leave egg all over a lot of faces.
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.