Schiavo Appeal Has Been Filed

Fox News

[sonsofliberty2000]

per Fox

[hedgetrimmer]

Federal courts may be disbanded by Congress. They can disband a court and suddenly the Judge is not a judge anymore.

A new court can be created, maybe with some actual honest judges for once that will uphold the Constitution instead of overturning in favor of international law.

[nimbysrule]

Hate to argue with a military family member, but if this recentlaw was based on the Fourteenth Amendment, that's a legitimate basis for federal action to prevent a state from depriving an American citizen from his or her rights under the 14th - which of course extends all Constitutional rights to the states. The 14th has been the tool used by the judiciary to usurp power from the other branches. Now it's time to use it against them and against the outlaw state of Florida.

[nimbysrule]

PS - I mean federal EXECUTIVE action, a la Eisenhower.

[carl in alaska]

biochemistry classs = biochemistry classes (as in college)

[GretchenM]

The American people, by polls, support the Democrat minority in Congress on killing poor Terri.

I understand the spirit in which you wrote to areafiftyone. The American people are sadly underinformed about the facts and until they know the facts, polling them is worse than useless.

Were the American people rightly informed and informed in depth about the facts of the case, I would like to see another few polls on the subject.

Has anyone considered how many Americans are struggling with guilt over pulling the plug on their own elder relatives, or ambivalence on how to treat their still alive but aged and very ill parents or other relatives? That surely seemed to influence more than a couple Congressmen.

[ContraryMary]

It goes without saying that her tube must be reinserted now

Apparently not. Congress dropped the ball.

[conservativebabe]

That's true. If Terri dies, I think that she was meant to teach us something about life and death, good and evil.

People can argue state's rights and the law until the cow's come home, but I know in my heart that the Lord would choose life for Terri. It is the free-will of man that will kill her, not God's will.

[eccentric]

Senator Santorum agrees with our analysis as well.

I have no respect for ANYONE there. It does NO GOD to issue a subpoena and then leave town without following through with hearings.

Yes, I know it was a House subpoena, but the Senate could have done it, too. I begged Sam Brownback to but he wouldn't.

no respect

[nmh]

Her husband was an emotional wreak.

He gave in.

It was our first experience with a Floriduh Hospice. We'll never forget it either. We truly had NO IDEA that they did this.

It was so inhumane. You should have seen her eyes. They were GONE - disintegrated. Awful beyond words.

[shrinkermd]

Post 667 was very helpful and informative. Thank you.

[Theodore R.]

Santorum meekly says the judge "simply disobeyed the law." He did not suggest impeachment or any action at all. I hope he doesn't just plan to "move on" as he faces Robert Casey, Jr., next year.

[Military family member]

"I guess I'm more of a results-oriented person. The outcome to me is more important than the process. "

That process is called the law, and what you are suggesting is utter anarchy. Why not do away with all laws why we are at it? That's exactly the Nazis DID do. We may not agree with the law, we may not like the law, but we work within the system to change the law. We don't take the law into our own hands. If that's the case, then let's legalize lynchings. Anyone we don't like, just hang them.

And don't give me the argument that that's what the courts have done. I have spent much of this morning reading and rereading this ruling. I don't like the outcome, but I think Whitmore ruled the only way he could, and I believe he shows exactly why he did.

Let's not exchange one terrible situation for another.

[Jotmo]

I haven’t weighed in on this subject as of yet, for many reasons. I’ve been reading the various reactions and statements of everyone here. I would like to share some observations.

Some of the things said and the tactics use here by my fellow Christians has really shocked me. The Nazi word has been slung around with impunity, something we deride the left for doing. Yet I’ve seen it used here with no other justification than the person doesn’t agree with you. The Christians on FR ought to be ashamed of themselves for some of the things that have been said. This issue has truly brought out the worst in many of them. They’re arguing and acting just like liberals, and that’s a fact.

The husband has been accused of every evil under the sun, and these unfounded accusations are then used to describe his motive for wanting her dead, to cover up his “crimes”. There is NO proof of this. The courts have found it so. The legal process has been exhausted in this matter. The only thing left is accusations from her parents. People who are opposed to him in this matter. Using these silly, unproven accusations just make you look petty, and your argument week. Stick to what is proven.

This is NOT a Federal matter. What happened to the “states rights” that we conservatives are always going on about? The constitution says no one may be deprived of life or liberty WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. Due process has been served. This should never have gotten this far.

She is not being “executed” by the government as many here are suggesting. The government should not even be involved. The only reason they are is because of her parents dragging this through every court they can find. This is a FAMILY matter.

The husband says she told him she didn’t want to be kept alive like this. People here have flat out said he’s lying when the fact is, YOU DON”T KNOW SQUAT about what was said between this husband and wife in a private moment. The fact that she never discussed it with anyone else is irrelevant, and is not PROOF that she didn’t tell him that. You can question his motives all you want, but the fact that he turned down an offer for what we know is a minimum of 1 million dollars to walk away tells me something.

He is the LEGAL GARDIAN as provided by law. That’s as it should be. THEY WERE MARRIED, legally and in the eyes of GOD. He has the right to speak for her, NO ON ELSE DOES. Period! The best lesson one can take from this is, be careful who you marry. They will have the legal and moral right to speak for you in this kind of situation. Weather or not he’s morally right in his decision is irrelevant. He is the husband. The marriage relationship is THE MOST SACRED relationship in Gods eyes. No one has a right to place themselves between them. No one. Yes I know he has a girlfriend and kids with her. But the fact remains. She married him, and they are STILL legally married. He’s SCUM for being disloyal to his wife IMO, but that doesn’t change their legal status ONE BIT.

But the overriding issue here that no one here wants to discuss is simply that. Right of wrong, he has the sole legal and moral right to speak for her. Weather or not she has any self awareness is DEBATABLE, even among doctors. But the legal process has repeatedly found that she’s a vegetable. Therefore, the decision on what to do falls to her legal guardian. That’s her husband. Sorry you don’t like it, but that’s the way it is weather you agree with his decision or not.

We will pontificate for day’s on end, myself included, about how the homo marriage issue, and other issues in our culture, undermine the sacred marriage covenant. And here is the ultimate test for us. He claims he is fulfilling a promise made to his wife, and NO ONE has any proof to the contrary. The fact is no one knows if that’s true or not. And unless there is proof to indicate otherwise, NO ONE has the right to question his promise to his wife.

There are many things about this case that disturb me. And I can see how many people could believe his motives are suspect. But the courts have ruled REPEATADLY in this matter, and he has retained his legal rights to be her guardian. There simple isn’t enough PROOF to find otherwise.

He is the husband. He has the legal right to decide. My wife has expressed just such a wish to me about not being kept alive in this sort of situation. I would fight with everything I had honor that wish. No mater what. And no one has the right to interfere with that. And that’s what people are trying to do, come between a man and his promise to his wife.

Flame away if you must, I can take it.

[utahagen]

You got it! We'll keep on praying for Terri's life. Woe to those on Michael Schiavo's side. I wouldn't want to be them on Judgment Day.

[Nick Danger]

How did he blow it?

If you read Whittemore's decision, what the Schindlers' lawyer did was treat the proceeding as an appeal, not as a de novo trial about whether Terri Schiavo's civil rights are/were violated.

All his areguments are of the form, "Greer screwed up here, Greer screwed up there." He thus drags the whole Greer proceeding into what should have been a de novo trial, and makes the issue to be decided whether Greer screwed up.

Whittemore looks at the record, doesn't see any obvious place where Greer screwed up (procedurally) as alleged by the Schindlers' lawyer, and concludes that the Schindlers' case has little chance of succeeding.

In fairness to Whittemore, it looks to me like he is trying to tell the lawyer to come back with a different case, one that turns on potential violations of Terri Schiavo's civil rights, and not on anything that happened in the state court proceeding. Whittemore even goes so far as to highlight the fact that the law Congress passed called for a de novo trial, and then points out that by dragging the state court case into the new proceeding, the lawyer has essentially thrown away the opportunity he had to start fresh.

No, I have not called anybody to advise them of my expert opinion on this matter. Hell, I'm not even a lawyer. But if I can see this, why can't the damned lawyer?

[snarkytart]

Prize-awarding institutions invite more than 6,000 individuals to propose, or nominate, candidates for the Nobel Prize.

How do you know the congressman was not invited by a Universtiy to Nominate someone?

[MineralMan]

"Take some biochemistry classs man. After that you won't be an atheist any more. "

---

Odd. I took three biochemistry classes in college. I'm still an atheist. Different strokes.

[northernlightsII]

But Cranford the avowed right to die,right to kill advocate is credible and unbiased....Give your head a shake if you want to impeach one then you have to disqualify the other.

[Military family member]

I agree; it fact, I say that we cannot assume anything about God's intentions.

[Peach]

Just for a little more perspective on Dr. H:

http://www.casewatch.org/civil/schiavo.shtml

What is significant, however, and what [undermines] his credability is that he did not present to this court any evidence other than his generalized statements as to the efficacy of his therapy on brain damaged individuals like Terry Schiavo. He testified that he has treated about 50 patients in the same or worse condition than Terry Schiavo since 1994 but he offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no tests results to support his claim that he had success in all but one of them. If his therapy is as effective as he would lead this court to believe, it is inconceivable that he would not produce clinical results of these patients he has treated. And surely the medical literature would be replete with this new, now patented, procedure. Yet, he has only published one article and that was in 1995 involving some 63 patients, 60% of whom were suffering from whiplash. None of these patients were in a persistent vegetative state and all were conversant. Even he acknowledges that he is aware of no article or study that shows vasodilatation therapy to be an effective treatment for persistent vegetative state patients. The court can only assume that such substantiations are not available, not just catalogued in such a way that they can not be readily identified as he testified.