Posted on 03/22/2005 6:13:43 AM PST by sonsofliberty2000
per Fox
Show me where I said that? I never did.
THIS couple is still married.
Grounds for divorce, is not a divorce. He is still the husband. Yes, "in name only", but he is still legally and scripturally her husband. That is an indisputable FACT.
Adultery does not nullify the marriage. You will not find that in any biblical scripture, Christian church teaching, or legal text. Period.
"They can only order the decisions they are reviewing BACK to the court that made the original findings."
This is incorrect. For instance, in the folling appellate decision the appeals court did provide temporary injunctive relief while they remanded the case back to the trial court to follow their instructions.
FOR PUBLICATION
April 20,2004
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Gale Norton
No. 04-15682
D.C. No. CV-00-06191-AWI
Eastern District of California, Fresno
ORDER
Before: GOODWIN, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges
We write to clarify our Opinion of October 27, 2003, Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 796-99 (9th Cir. 2003). There we held that the entire Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan ("CMP") is invalid due to two deficiencies: (1) a failure to adequately address user capacities; and (2) the improper drawing of the Merced River's boundaries at El Portal. While we remanded to "the district court to enter an appropriate order requiring the [National Park Service] to remedy these deficiencies in the CMP in a timely manner," id. at 803, we did not "otherwise uphold the [CMP]." District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order Following Remand at 28. Rather, our Opinion merely stated that the additional challenges to the CMP brought by Friends of Yosemite Valley and Mariposans for Environmentally Responsible Growth (collectively, "Friends") lacked merit. Pursuant to our original Opinion, the National Park Service ("NPS") must prepare a new or revised CMP that adequately addresses user capacities and properly draws the river boundaries at El Portal.
Because the district court based its denial of Friends' motion for injunctive relief on a misconstruction of our Opinion, we remand this matter to it for reconsideration of Friends' motion in light of this clarification of our prior holding. Pending the district court's reconsideration of this matter, we grant a temporary stay of proceedings and an injunction prohibiting NPS from implementing any and all projects developed in reliance upon the invalid CMP.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
" AARP land is not a compassionate state for the aging." It doesn't sound like it's a compassionate state for the dying, or for the disabled, or for those who seek political asylum or for children in need of care (that's what kids at risk are called in my state). It sounds like an ok place if you want to get a tan or go to Disney World but that's about it.
A lot of misinformation in this case could be settled if folks just referred to the text of the legislation. In this case it reads:
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 686
AN ACT
For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.
Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.
SEC. 3. RELIEF.
After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.
Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
DOES MICHAEL CONSIDER HIMSELF BOUND UNDER OATH TO FORSAKE ALL WOMEN BESIDES TERRI?
Such an oath is a sine qua non of marriage, at least in a post-polygny age. By his words and actions, including his declaring himself to be Jodi's "fiancé", Michael has indicated that he does not consider him to be bound by marriage oaths. Since such oaths are a sine qua non of marriage, Michael therefore cannot rightly consider himself to be Terri's husband in any but the barest legal sense.
"after 15 years some of the witnesses might not be alive.."
What a ridiculous statement in this case as we are dealing with avoiding the cruel death of the principal interested party. But your concern is that the testimony of some already dead person should be given priority?
8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
MATT 19: 8-9
Jesus states here that the only reason for divorce is, "...marital unfaithfulness..."
Has Mike Schiavo been unfaithful?
This discussion is over...
Try and find some intellectual honesty.
Without delay? Yeah, sure.
Show me where I said automatic. You need to calm down so we can see your Christ-likeness. :)
Thanks, Andy. Napolitano was wrong then!
Lest anyone claim otherwise, the Congress establishes the laws that organize and regualate the courts, which is their power under the constitution.
Any sentient being with any knowledge of legal terminology would know he was wrong. The SC frequently grants injunctive relief pursuant to an appeal.
Thank you....
Okay enough of this empty argument. Yes there is a presumption that a spouse can stand as guardian, but that presumption can be reversed by the facts such as conflict of interest for example.
THe same courts have on many occasions overlooked the prima facie right of parents to be guardians where they have refused blood transfusions to their children.
So stop repeating over and over that he is her husband.That is not the final criteriun to determine guardianship,but only one that can be overriden,and obviously should have been in this case.
He DID treat it as a request for injunctive relief. He ruled that because the Schindlers did not show reasonable possibility of winning their suit he wasn't going to grant the relief.
LOL! Well, since I consider myself to be a sentient being, it is obviously my lack of legal terminology that allowed me to be suckered!
But how could the Tampa Clintoid judge refuse to hold a new trial simply because he thought that the Schindlers could not prevail. The law says there should be a new trial without prejudice. It does not say that the judge may not have the trial if he pleases. To me, that would be grounds for the appeals court to give relief (tube re-insertion), and sending the case back to trial to Tampa. And the Tampa trial would be by jury: so this judge might not be able to dictate death for Terri.
It seems that Connor is a tad wrong.
The Florida Second District Court of Appeal upheld the trial's court decision that no such prohibition exists in Florida.
When respect to the Schiavo case, the Florida Second District Court of Appeals wrote in January 2001:
Under these circumstances, the two parties, as adversaries, present their evidence to the trial court. The trial court determines whether the evidence is sufficient to allow it to make the decision for the ward to discontinue life support. In this context, the trial court essentially serves as the ward's guardian.Although we do not rule out the occasional need for a guardian in this type of proceeding, a guardian ad litem would tend to duplicate the function of the judge, would add little of value to this process, and might cause the process to be influenced by hearsay or matters outside the record. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's discretionary decision in this case to proceed without a guardian ad litem.
Honestly, I don't see how Greer let HINO keep gaurdianship of Terri since there is a huge conflict of interest here, seeing he is living with another women of whom he has had children with.
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.