To: windchime
I am confused about the amicus curia briefs of Crist and Bush. How can Crist seem to be on one side and the governor seem to be on the other side? Please clarify.
To: Theodore R.
I am confused about the amicus curia briefs of Crist and Bush. How can Crist seem to be on one side and the governor seem to be on the other side? Please clarify.I am no legal expert, but as a layman, it would seem to me that Crist only argued that the State's laws are constitutional. He specifically said in his brief that he was not entering on one side or the other, but was merely pointing out that the constitutionality of those laws.
Bush, on the other hand, is also bound by his oath to defend that same constitution, and is doing his part by entering this case (if allowed by Lazzara) to argue in favor of the Schindlers.
To: Theodore R.
Theodore, I don't think that Crist is "on the side of" Schiavo, necessarily. In his filing, he is only stating his belief that the FL statutes are constitutional. Honestly, this legalese is very confusing to me so I could very well be totally wrong, but my thinking is that the FL laws seem to carry safeguards (clear and convincing evidence, what constitutes PVS, the right to challenge decisions on ending life support blah blah blah) but where the law falls down is that ultimately the JUDGE has final control and in this case the judge is mind-numbingly biased in favor of ending Terri's life. He did not reasonably weigh all the facts of the case. Crist even said in his brief, at least on one point, that the Schindler's don't seem to have a dispute with the statutes, but with the APPLICATION of the statutes by Judge Greer. Crist is just defending the constitutionality of the statutes, but does not offer an opinion on the merits of the case. Like I said, I could be totally wrong about this, but it seems to me that it boils down to judicial misconduct - the mis-application of the laws by Greer.
As far as Jeb is concerned, the only point he is addressing is the fact that Greer is not allowing Terri the right to try to take food and hydration by mouth. THIS is in violation of her right to life. He is not disputing Michael's right to remove the tube, but only that Terri needs to be allowed to try to eat and drink by mouth first.
1,262 posted on
10/07/2003 11:50:30 AM PDT by
iowamomforfreedom
(Why is it illegal to starve an animal but not a human being?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson