Posted on 03/22/2005 6:13:43 AM PST by sonsofliberty2000
per Fox
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the oligarchy for which it stands one nation, defying God, with laws and due process for all.
No, I don't.
I am a lawyer, and that's why I am so frightened by the takeover by the courts, lawyers and legal system. I know a lot of these people and they are the LAST people you would want controlling life and death decisions. I would feel a great deal more comfortable with most of the folks on this site. The "system" has become a complete abstraction, manipulable by its players to further the desired political-social agenda. Nothing will really change until the executives and legislatures decide to take their power back. We might not have things our way then, but at least the power would be back in the hands of elected officials, and with regular opportunities to throw the b------ds out.
That has always been the presumption in American law, and in the English common law that our legal system is based on-- that when a person marries, they are choosing to make their spouse, not their parents, their primary family. This also has roots in the Bible (Genesis 2:24).
And I do think it is a safe bet that Bilirakis would not be invited to nominate someone for a Nobel Prize in Physiology, since he has no credentials in the field.
I'm not surprised that someone with a connection to the military would say, "Never give up!" Thumbs up.
See Footnote 3 in Whittemore's ruling.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/fedctorder032205.pdf
The plaintiff's attornies didn't discuss how Greer's disregarding of "unfavorable" evidence is related to the due process claims.
You've said nothing new here. Not worth flaming.
However, I will simply responde to one statement, "her parents dragging this through every court they can find."
Most of us would do no less for our child.
I'm no so sure we need "new" law just a little common sense for law already on the books. It does not make good common sense to put some in charge of another person's life who has made it plain he plans to kill her.
There was a proposal in Congress that would have required the feeding tube to be re-installed pending the hearing in federal court, but it didn't pass. The legislation, as passed, says that her parents can file a lawsuit in federal court. That's all it says.
I am not saying I like the way this came out, but I feel that Whitmore ruled the only way he could have ruled, based on the law, the only thing on which he could based his ruling.
(That's my last comment on this subject. I won't bother you any more after this...lol)
Congress has no constitutional authority to order the feeding tube re-inserted. Instead they issued legislation allowing the Schindlers to file a de novo review of the merits of the case, and for the Court to grant all declaratory and injunctive relief as necessary to protect the rights of Terri Schiavo.
That's why DeLay et al were so sure the feeding tube would be re-inserted on Sunday. In order to have a de novo review of the merits of the case, Terri Schiavo would need to be alive and thus the injunctive relief sought re-inserting the feeding tube should have been granted by Whittemore.
However, Whittemore screwed up by applying the civil procedure standard for injunctive relief by saying the Schindlers would not prevail on the merits. But IMHO, that's not the standard Congress authorized for granting injunctive relief. The standard was all releif necessary to protect the constitutional rights of Terri Schiavo. Congress required Whittemore to issue the injunction to re-insert the feeding tube so there could be a trial on the merits.
I agree the law passed by Congress could have used some work but there are grounds for a successful appeal here.
"That has always been the presumption in American law, and in the English common law that our legal system is based on-- that when a person marries, they are choosing to make their spouse, not their parents, their primary family. This also has roots in the Bible (Genesis 2:24)."
In LIFE matters I agree. But in DEATH matters, BLOOD should come into play. The Bible also addresses murder and the taking of a life in other passages.
So, if the Nazis passed a law that Jews-in-hiding had to be reported, you would have followed the law. You would have reported run-away slaves, even if you believed slavery to be unjust. When King Darius signed the law against prayer to anyone but himself, you would have complied.
An unjust law is no law at all.
-A8
And now in FL you'll be able to take your worthless spouse (ill, maimed, brain damaged) to a hospice and get rid of it just like a pet you don't want anymore. The only difference is they will put your pet "to sleep" with drugs (the same ones they use to do away with murderers) and your spouse will have to starve to death.
Yes, you're right. A de novo trial/hearing means just that =- brand new. Schindlers' lawyer should have brought in new evidence - affidavits, etc. - that weren't in the state record. Sounds like there's a lot of compelling new evidence out there. I don't know if they made it into the federal court. That's what you do in federal habeas corpus writs from state court criminal judgments. (Two of which I'm working on right now.) If Schindlers' lawyer didn't do this, that's a big-time screw up.
Those subpoenas should never have been issued. That being said, Congress has to enforce them. I have no idea why they have not.
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.