Posted on 03/22/2005 6:13:43 AM PST by sonsofliberty2000
If I lived anywhere NEAR Pinellas Country I WOULD MOVE OUT OF THERE NOW!!!!!!!!!
If its the end of the argument why are you here?
"She wants to die of starvation and dehydration."--
CONJECTURE AND RUMOR!!!!
Hearsay works for him but not for others,is that the way it works in your alternative galaxy?
Yes you are being silly, Your examples of ancient times and primitive cultures have no bearing on this situation. If you can't see the difference, I'm not going to explain it to you.
Yet here: Schiavo, Micheal the mock Archangel of Death, he says he melted the rings and had the gold used to make a ring for himself, iirc, with the stone from her ring remounted.
To be kind to him at the time he did it, if it was early on -- it might have been a way of keeping her memory near.
I sure hope your right. Rush just said he doesn't think they will. Let's pray he is WRONG on this one!!!!!!What makes you think the 11th court will ,atruelady?
His obligation is to have TERRI's wishes followed, not his own. That is, he is not "in charge" in the sense that he is free to assert his wishes in place of hers. Greer found that Michael's testimony met the standard of clear and convincing evidence that Terri, when competnet, made a decision to never accept a feed tube to extend her life.
And I understand that. But this is assuming, which I am sure you are, a good husband with no evil intent. We can't say the same about MS.
The fault rests with those that want to starve a human being to death. All the flowery words and legalese don't change that fact. Pure compassion should afford this woman a chance to test this new laws constitunality (is that a word?) Restoring her feeding tube is a no brainer.
NO
Saving an innocent person's life is not a Federal matter? I believe Christ would beg to differ.
"I know the 11th Circuit will come through. "
I hope so. Has anybody heard or does anybody even know how she is doing? I know she went six days without water before, and it's been five already this time. I wish there was something we could do!
He SLIPPED yesterday on nation TV and said " he doesn't know WHAT TERRI'S wishes are but these are HIS WISHES." I heard someone has the transcipts of that too.
Agreed. I thought it was cleverly worded, but maybe Congress was too cute by half.
It's amazing the will to live this girl has who "wanted to die".
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?
At first I thought that you had an open mind and were seriously looking for an explanation. However, it is clear that you want me to tell you that the judge's decision was wrong.
I cited to you the first appellate decision which reviewed the trial court's decision, which you poo-poo'd as "legalistic crap."
Due to the dispute in this case, the judge was appointed the party to make the decision. Five doctors presented testimony. Based upon that testimony, he came to a conclusion as to Terri's medical state.
In addition, three witnesses testified that Terri did not want to live in a vegatative state.
All of the opinions in this matter on on the web in various places. This case has been reviewed and re-reviewed, and all of the parent's "new" evidence has been vetted....and if you still don't like me answer, then we can agree to disagree.
Only one judge reviewed the facts: Green. The other ones only reviewed the PROCEDURE.
This is my last post - I must go do some of my "day job" work! Thanks, everyone, as always, for great arguments and interaction.
BTW, most of my experience is as a criminal trial and appellate lawyer. And I've seen people convicted and the convictions affirmed all the way up the ladder(s) on far flimsier evidence than I see against that POS Schiavo thing already.
Look what one of the potential buyers of Terri's feeding tube asked:
"Can you authenticate that this is Terri's actual tube? I want to use it to make a bong to be used in the final round of the Cannabis Cup in Amsterdam, I think it would generate a lot of publicity."
Revolting.
Glad to see someone else actually read the opinion. The reasoning is circular. His conclusion assumes that if he were to try the case he would concluded what had already been concluded. Minimal due process requires that he actually try the case. This is not an appeal but a new proceding.
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.