Posted on 03/22/2005 6:13:43 AM PST by sonsofliberty2000
per Fox
Anything is better than the 9th
I asked earlier about the possibilities of an Executive Order, or Executive Finding. As I understand that process, the President declares "this is what the law says," and then has the power to act.
Sorry, babe, NOTHING'S better than the 4th, followed very closely by the 5th. I think the 11th is OK, but no 4th or 5th.
That's right. So why is everyone so shocked that the judge didn't rubberstamp Congress?
I sure would appreciate someone explaining in laymans terms how this is 1) legally, being permitted, considering the public information that is out there includes no living will on Terri's behalf, and 2) morally being tolerated by a medical profession sworn to the hippocratic oath.
If the judges are making the legally correct decision, explain it to us.
Now explain how a judge can subjectively come to a decision that deprives the God given right to life of an individual based on the facts in this case. Is that a clear enough question for you?
I hadn't heard of the other two witnesses before now. Apparently that information isn't part of the stuff being trotted out by some folks.
This is why I have formed no opinion about what should happen in this case. There is so much half-truth in the issue that it's impossible to find what's true and what's not.
>>Who were the other two witnesses, if you know?<<
I am pretty sure the other two witnesses were Michael's brother and his brother's wife.
One of the first lessons in law shool is to seek the "unstated rationale." The system is manipulable and manipulated by powerful players.
I would say so but it's not like there's some poll of judicial writers out there ranking the courts based on their rulings.
Circumstances in a marriage change. There is a possibility that Terri would have revoked that right from him had she not been stricken before doing so. It has been said that Terri was going to leave him. Unfortunately, we don't all have the convenience of knowing when something terrible is going to happen to us.
It is not reasonable to me that the parents have absolutely NO say in what happens to their own daughter. A husband isn't given the right to murder a wife, abuse a wife, or anything else, just by virtue of marrying her.
HE Melted her wedding RINGS too, right after event
Wittimore needs to be impeached and removed from office for not following the letter and spirit of the law which Congress specifically passed, requiring de novo examination of this case.
If the 11th Circuit punts this ball, they should be impeached and removed. If the Supreme Court demurs, they should be impeached and removed also.
Enough is enough. It's about time these puffed-up tyrants were in fear for their jobs, if not their lives.
Otherwise, we are officially under judicial tyranny and nothing can, or will, stop them. We will no longer have a Constitution which means anything.
Frist, DeLay et al knew damned well that there was about a 99% chance that this law they passed would be ignored by the federal courts. They were unable to pass the first House bill in the Senate. The bill that Bush signed was the best the Republicans could get through both houses, mostly meaningless, but got rid of the "hot potato" for them and they expect us to give them credit for trying. When Greer defied the subpoenas, it was obvious that nobody was going to save Terri. She and her records should have been taken into custody when the subpoenas were served. Then Greer would have been arrested if he failed to comply and the records seized.
It gives standing to the wronged party in a divorce filing. Are you actually arguing that Terri would ALLOW her husband to father children with another woman? The only reason divorce papers were not filed is because the one person who is authorized by the court to file is the person who is committing open and notorious adultery. Bit of a conflict of interest there, yes?
Further, no one is going to tell me "it's not my place" if they are trying to what I percieve as, killing my child. NO ONE. It is my place.
The :giving away" is symbolic as to the care of the individual being transferred from parent to spouse. But it would be a stretch to assume that such "care" would include killing the person by forced starvation/dehydration. When my father-in-law "gave away" his daughter to me at our wedding, I don't think he thought that would include the right to kill her.
I have heard that in some Middle Eastern countries, killing the female spouse is within the rights of the husband. I have been told that in ancient Rome the father of a family could choose to kill his infant child by abandoning it in the countryside to die of exposure if he choose not to take the trouble to raise it. So I guess there is contemporary and historical precedent for familial murder. But I had assumed all along that we were a more civilized and enlightened society than these barbaric ones. Silly me, I guess I was wrong...
Husband, and siblings in law as well. Yup. That testimony is elevated to be clear and convincing evidence of Terri's desire to be starved to death.
I am incredulous. If somebody came to me 6 years later, turned their position 180 degrees from where it was, I would assume they were lying. Greer wrote off Michael's change of heart. Very shifty.
It's good that so many of the FREEPERS still trust the legal systems. I've been a lawyer for almost 20 years and I am very, very cynical about them (obviously.) I don't trust the other two branches a great deal, but at least they are somewhat transparent, subject to open election and not invested with Delphic Oracle awe and mystery as are the courts.
"What's the difference between G-d and a federal judge?"
"G-d doesn't think he's a federal judge"
This is the fault of Gibbs, the Schindler's attorney, not the Judge. Why didn't Gibbs bring the new evidence to light?
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.