Posted on 03/22/2005 6:13:43 AM PST by sonsofliberty2000
per Fox
Honesty is what seems to be lacking in this case between the murderous husband and sadist judge.
Every Federal judge in the country knows that Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy and Stevens would pull the tube out with their own hands.
And every Federal judge in the country will rule accordingly.
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.
The judge made a determination of the merits of the suit and accordingly did not grant injunctive relief. Nothing more.
Where does the law give the law give such authority? The role of a good guardian ad litem is to oppose anything the guardian tries to do that might be incorrect. The guardian, if his intentions are honest, should be able to prove them to be so.
Essentially, what's happened here is that Greer's allowed Michael to claim "the preponderance of the evidence" without being rebutted by anyone who is allowed full discovery. The appeals court is being amazingly presumptive in declaring what a guardian ad litem wouldn't find.
Don't be surprised. Justice Scalia himself said in the Cruzan case that government does not belong in the life-and-death decision-making process.
But if there is a trial, there could be such major revelations that would make it politically impossible for the USSC to rule for euthanasia in this case.
You did not read the legislation. He based his decision that they would lose on the trial court record, but the legislation stipulates the procedure that he is to follow - namely to try the cases de novo - which is not a 2 hr preliminary hearing - but a multi-day hearing with expert witnesses, etc.
The trial court erred in chosing to credit that which they were expressly forbidden from crediting - namely the acts of the state to that point.
If the case were sent to trial in Tampa, there would be a jury. Wouldn't that save Terri? Or would the USSC say that the law mandating the jury trial is itself unconstitutional?
I know this might have been discussed already, but I don't feel like sifting through 1,500 posts...does anyone have any ballpark estimate of when we might know what the 11th Circuit has decided?
I'm 20 minutes from Atlanta...I want to drive down there right now and start raising cain.
"The judge made a determination of the merits of the suit and accordingly did not grant injunctive relief. Nothing more." And what does de novo mean in the Congressional bill?
Just be glad the 11th Circuit meets in a different courthouse than the one that was shot up last week.
The de novo trial comes later. This was merely a hearing on providing injunctive relief.
In that the consensus is that the Atlanta court won't help Terri, I cannot imagine why the three judges have been reviewing this for over nine hours now.
How stupid. How can there be a de novo trial later if there is no relief granted? What a deceitful judge.
I heard that they would go late tonight if necessary.
Nevertheless, the case law is what it is, and Connor seems to be out of the loop.
Either the lawyer representing the Jeb Bush was misinformed, or the poster was misquoting him.
True...maybe a positive ruling from this court will redeem Atlanta for its shortcomings!
Let me know if you would like a link to the judge's decision. He lays it out pretty well.
You need to read the whole entire act. Section 2 of the same act reads:
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.
The direction of the Congress to the court to try the case all over again - which was not done - is pretty clear.
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.