Interestingly, Fox's legal analyst, Judge Napolitano, this afternoon said it would only take four justices to agree to review the case...not a majority...and that they'd decide fast since Terri is in jeopardy.
Yeah but our fast and their fast is two different things.
I also heard the judge say this...and I was quite surprised...it will take only 4 of the justices to agree to a review of the case...he said its one of the quirks about the Supreme Court, and I would guess, that most people dont realize this...
WOW - I hope you're right. I think they can get 4 - maybe it's one of the reasons Rehnquist came back - ? The key, as always, is O'Connor. Sigh.
This is correct. Takes four to hear a case. If they can get Sandra, we're in.
------
I don't think you would like Scalia's point of view on this case. He is quite clear where he stands on this issue. From the report to Jeb Bush on the Schiavo case in 2003:
Justice Scalia has admonished us to rely upon and accept the role of state lawmakers and laws to address issues of this very nature. Though his point of reference was Missouri law relative to an evidentiary standard, his message remains that it is up to states to establish the rules and guidelines in these matters.
I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide - including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life-and-death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable. (emphasis added) Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497, U.S. 261 (1990)
And while he might not agree with a particular state's method for addressing a matter – he not only defers to the states – but further admonishes us to avoid the politicization of legislation in these matters:
I am concerned, from the tenor of today's opinions, that we are poised to confuse that [497 U.S. 261, 293] enterprise as successfully as we have confused the enterprise of legislating concerning abortion - requiring it to be conducted against a background of federal constitutional imperatives that are unknown because they are being newly crafted from Term to Term. That would be a great misfortune. Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497, U.S. 261 (1990)
and that they'd decide fast since Terri is in jeopardy.
167 posted on 03/23/2005 8:47:56 PM PST by hershey
He is correct. I don't know who said all seven had to agree. If it was said ,it is probably some more bullshit that the main stream media have been putting out. The mainstream media have lied from the beginning.
I had agonized over why so many people who do not even know her, a lot of whom are members of this forum, are so determined to kill her. I even asked some of those on this formum that question.
Coming home from church it hit me like a ton of bricks. Governor Bush interveined and then President Bush interveined.
The Bush haters want to murder her to spite Governor Bush and President Bush.
This type of individuals are beyond help. Divine or secular.