Schiavo Appeal Has Been Filed

Fox News

[jjmcgo]

I thought "de novo" meant "new look," not a review of what has transpired. It's my understanding Congress wanted the federal court to start the process anew. That's not what Whittemore did.

[Jrabbit]

I've never had to have a pet "put down", but Michael did have Terris' 2 cats euthanised. Seems his new squeeze has a dog and the cats were such a bother....like his wife....and his parents....

Terris' parents wanted to take the cats, but Michael refused. See a pattern here?

[ContemptofCourt]

As I said before, what exactly do you want me to explain?

[snarkytart]

>>>Well, he agrees with my analysis of Whittemore's ruling. He also knows the 11th Cir is the most conservative of the Federal Appellate Courts. He is providing some cover for when they correct Whittemore's ruling, hoepfully later today.<<<

Lets hope you are correct.

Remember conservative can also mean the judges on that court are less likely to do anything radical or activist leaning, like reinsert Terry's feeding tube.

Can the 11th simple say "we refuse to hear it"? I need to hear the options...what can the 11th do with this case before them now???

[northernlightsII]

Is it better then the 4th?

[Military family member]

I think you make several very good points here.

[AFPhys]

Please do not consider this flame throwing.

I DO agree that a true and faithful SPOUSE, such as you for your wife, has an innate right to be believed when they maintain such-and-such is their wife's wish. My trouble with this HINO begins with #1 item: How is it he only came to realize and recall his wife's wishes AFTER he won a million-dollar lawsuit maintaining he had to take care of her? You remember right NOW what your wife wishes -- why did it take seven years of ostensively working on behalf of her life and assuring the insurance bonanza before he suddenly realized her wish?

All the rest of my difficulty with the case is rooted in this extremely suspect "hearsay" evidence from a mouse who has not behaved as a husband for a very long time.

[nimbysrule]

PS: Just because a judge is clever at justifying his or her decision does not make it right legally. These people got to be where they are in large part through adroitly gaming the system. Trust me on this, and remember the case of Robert Bork, who is one of the most brilliant and ethical jurists to ever come down the pike, but was a political naif.

[Jotmo]

Perhaps. But it is not their place. She belongs to her husband, and he to her. That's why the father "givers her away" at the ceremony. She doesn't belong to them.

SHE willingly gave him the legal and moral right to speak for her in this situation by marrying him. She has to live with the consequences of that decision. No one, even the parents have the right to come between that.

Unless it can be established legally that he should loose that right, it's his decision. The courts have not found reason to do so.

The parents are way out of line here.

[Yinzer]

Can the 11th simple say "we refuse to hear it"? I need to hear the options...what can the 11th do with this case before them now???

They will most likely kick it back down to the judge that ruled this morning. The hope is for a TRO to get the feeding tube back.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Do you realize that this ENTIRE case hinges on the flimsy issue of her husband's word that she would want to be killed, with no witnesses, no corroboration, and in fact testimony to the very opposite by her family and the rest of the people in her life. Are you comfortable with that?

I agree with you that there is reason to be suspicious of the husband, but, for the sake of accuracy, Judge Greer relied on three witnesses, not just the husband.

[ContemptofCourt]

Do you realize that this ENTIRE case hinges on the flimsy issue of her husband's word that she would want to be killed, with no witnesses, no corroboration, and in fact testimony to the very opposite by her family and the rest of the people in her life.

This is patently false. Please get your facts straight.

[Military family member]

That issue has been addressed here by several Freepers who are lawyers. You are exactly right, but Gibbs did not make that argument. That is not the Judge's fault, but a failure on the part of Gibbs. He was given the opportunity, and he did not make the argument he should have made.

[nimbysrule]

Putting the tube back in was the obvious "declaratory and injunctive relief. . .necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo." It really doesn't take a Scalia or Bork to figure that one out.

[MineralMan]

"I agree with you that there is reason to be suspicious of the husband, but, for the sake of accuracy, Judge Greer relied on three witnesses, not just the husband."

---

Who were the other two witnesses, if you know?

[ContraryMary]

Provided the judge determined the suit had merit. And he determined it did not.

[Yinzer]

thik one of the other witnesses was Schiavo's sister. Not sure on the other one.

[GretchenM]

If you wish to change a few of those poll numbers, simply let people know the [facts] ...

Hi AF. I'm working on that. Times like this, I wish my sphere of influence were larger.

I missed the expatguy's thread -- thanks for the link.

[bigeasy_70118]

Congress cannot simply order a Court to issue a particular ruling.

And Congress didn't do that. They set a standard to be followed for issuing injunctive relief in this case. Now, if you want to argue that the standard fores the judge's hand, I won't disagree with you but obviously Whittemore didn't see it that way.

[Jotmo]

You are wrong. Infidelity does not nullify the marriage legally, or in the eyes of God. Period. You have no basis for that argument.