Is adultery still a crime on the Florida law books? Isn't there some way to get this Michael Schiavo character on the defensive?
And the twilight of the western world gets a little darker.
We don't have much time till it is night.
President's State of the Union 2005 Address (excerpt):
"Because a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable, we must strive to build a culture of life. Medical research can help us reach that goal, by developing treatments and cures that save lives and help people overcome disabilities -- and I thank the Congress for doubling the funding of the National Institutes of Health. (Applause.) To build a culture of life, we must also ensure that scientific advances always serve human dignity, not take advantage of some lives for the benefit of others. We should all be able to agree -- (applause) -- we should all be able to agree on some clear standards. I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human life is never bought and sold as a commodity. (Applause.) America will continue to lead the world in medical research that is ambitious, aggressive, and always ethical."
"Because courts must always deliver impartial justice, judges have a duty to faithfully interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. (Applause.) As President, I have a constitutional responsibility to nominate men and women who understand the role of courts in our democracy, and are well-qualified to serve on the bench -- and I have done so. (Applause.) The Constitution also gives the Senate a responsibility: Every judicial nominee deserves an up or down vote. (Applause.)"
President's Statement on Terri Schiavo - March 17, 2005:
"The case of Terri Schiavo raises complex issues. Yet in instances like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. Those who live at the mercy of others deserve our special care and concern. It should be our goal as a nation to build a culture of life, where all Americans are valued, welcomed, and protected - and that culture of life must extend to individuals with disabilities."
President Bush has always been straight up with his words.
Whether or not either Bush will be successful in saving Terri, this will only be the beginning, not the end, of the processes W has outlined.
Whether alive or a martyr, Terri will eventually be a major catalyst for the coming change(s) towards a culture of life.
I know it's difficult to be patient when there's such a tender life at stake, but patience, I think, is what we need.
May God's Will be done.
I'm am so disgusted by this POS Michael, and so depressed that an innocent woman is under a death sentence, that I can't type my thoughts.
I'm just sitting here in a fog.
Inquiring minds want to know....
Is the original judgement sealed??? Since Michael settled for substantially less than the original amount, it leads me to believe that there may be a substantial amount in escrow contingent on Terri's death. In my experience, that would be a great motivating factor on the part of the shark (attorney).
With regards to the judges. Silly mortals, don't you know that once a LAWYER is awarded the coveted black robe, they are automatically imbued with "jedi-like" powers that sets them above us, the unwashed masses. Part of that is need to defend a fellow judge at all cost. (9th Circus is exempt of course, it is the comedy relief for the Judicial)
I am not surprised that one black robe covers for another black robe. It is the way of things. If (a big if) there is ever another civil war in the US, I am willing to bet that it is instigated by some issue from a judge.
Semper Disgusted
I have a question, for an attorney (and you came to mind). How come DCF can't use this to get around Greer's mandate that Terri not be taken into custody?:
mandamus
(man-dame-us) n. Latin for "we order," a writ (more modernly called a "writ of mandate") which orders a public agency or governmental body to perform an act required by law when it has neglected or refused to do so. Examples: After petitions were filed with sufficient valid signatures to qualify a proposition for the ballot, the city refuses to call the election, claiming it has a legal opinion that the proposal is unconstitutional. The backers of the proposition file a petition for a writ ordering the city to hold the election. The court will order a hearing on the writ and afterwards either issue the writ or deny the petition. Or a state agency refuses to release public information, a school district charges fees to a student in violation of state law, or a judge will not permit reporters entry at a public trial. All of these can be subject of petitions for a writ of mandamus.
See also: writ of mandate
"Whoever lives in an open state of adultery shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding two years, or in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars. Where either of the parties living in an open state of adultery is married, both parties so living shall be deemed to be guilty of the offense provided for in this section."
Adultery is a crime in Florida. Will someone with the right connections please use this as a point of attack on Michael Schiavo's guardianship? Anybody?
Two hundred thirty nine years ago, there was a revolution. A collection of English colonies in North America decided to overthrow the tyranny of their far away king and trade it for self rule. In their great struggle, these men waged not one but two revolutions: one for independence from a far off motherland and one for a republican form of government, free from the dictates of nobility and royalty. They replaced rule by king with the concept of rule of law, which was decided upon by the people for the people. As time passed, a Constitution was written that would strengthen the greater unity of the nation, ensure the freedoms of the people, and delineate the powers of the government. The government would be split into three branches, with checks and balances over one another so as to prevent one branch from overtaking the other two. In this manner tyranny was to be avoided.
Relatively early in the history of the United States, the judiciary began establishing itself as the final interpreter of the Constitution. It bolstered itself with decisions such as Marbury v. Madison, which established greater power for the Supreme Court to judge the constitutionality of Congressional laws. In more recent times, the courts have begun to take it upon themselves to determine what the Constitution says and does not say, even in the face of clear wording. Judges have begun placing liberal social morals on the level of law, reading them into the Constitution as existing implicitly in some cases, while looking abroad to buttress them with foreign laws in others.
The judiciary has set itself in such a position so as to lead one to think that it believes it has become the law in itself. Based simply on personal views rationalized by farfetched leaps of logic involving foreign laws, "implied" but unwritten Constitutional clauses, and past fiats, the courts take it upon themselves to make laws and remove laws based simply on a whim when the opportunity presents itself. The judiciary has done a masterful job of usurping the role of the other two branches of government, ultimately dictating what the other two can and cannot do. They do this while blocking the checks and balances the legislative and executive branches should be able to exercise over judges by declaring such actions as "unconstitutional" or "against the law". And they call this unlawfulness "rule of law"!
It is beyond dispute that judges have moved beyond the exercise of a valid judiciary role in society towards actively imposing their will on this country by fiat, against the will of the people themselves. They have set up situations where the people must obtain supermajorities in order to pass constitutional amendments so that they can offset the will of a small group of judges! When the founders of this country fought their great revolution, and when men gave their blood in the wars thereafter, they did not do so in order to prop up a tyranny of judges, but rather that the people might govern themselves!
Judicial activism is responsible for the great dividing issues of our day. Judicial activism is responsible for the great national divide over issues such as abortion and homosexual marriage. The crux of the problem in the Terri Schiavo case, and the main reason little is being done by the federal courts, is that the upper courts are too busy protecting the jurisdiction of the lower courts to take the type to consider new evidence in the case. The case has directly pitted the judiciary against the legislative and executive branches, the judiciary is winning, and the judiciary knows that it will be weakened if it does not stand by the decisions passed by the lower courts.
The strong hand of the judiciary does not benefit conservatism in the long run. As has been noted in many places, activist judges have become the manner in which liberals have chosen to enact their vision of what they believe America should be. When liberals speak of jettisoning the Second Amendment and the Electoral College, they know full well that these will never be done away with through the constitutional amendment process. Liberals are counting on the judiciary to eventually declare them antiquated and unnecessary in our modern world. They want to paint these fundamentals to our Republic as not only outdated but harmful, thus giving the judiciary no choice but to protect us from ourselves. It seems at times as though if nothing is done to curtail these abuses of judicial power soon, we will reach a point where nothing can be done at all.
This country is in dire need of judicial reform. When activist judges feel free to run amok imposing their agendas on the people without facing the censure of the checks and balances built into the system, it seems incumbent upon us as Americans to remind them of their places. If we care about this issue, we should take action to show where we stand: we should take part in the March for Justice II in DC on April 7th, we should write letters to the editor decrying the judicial situation in this country, we should contact our local Congressmen demanding that action of some sort be taken! It is far better to take a stand than to sit around while being stood on!
A three-legged table cannot stand in a stable manner if one of the legs is far longer than the others. It's our responsibility to make sure that the leg does not become too long, lest the table fall.
Pontius Pilate has spoken.
I woke up in the middle of the night last night, thirsty. I couldn't help but think of Terri. Breaks my heart.
God bless Terri and her family.
IslamOnline's report concerning USSC refusal to hear the appeal was factual and accurate. The following from US Supreme Court Rejects Shiavo Appeal may be of interest:
Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, President of the Fiqh Council of North American, told IslamOnline.net that all religion, particularly Islam, “are deeply concerned about the preservation of the dignity and honor of human life.”
He stressed that “only the Creator of life has the ultimate decision about life and death.”
However, the scholar said if a number of medical experts determine that a patient is in a terminal condition, then it could be permissible for them, through a collective decision, to stop the medication.
He added that if the patient is on life support, it may be permissible, with due consultation and care, to decide to switch off the life support machine and let the nature take its own time.
Dr. Salah Soltan, President of the American Center for Islamic Research, Columbus, Ohio, agreed.
He said if doctors agree beyond any shred of doubt that a patient is clinically dead and that the brain is declared dead, then it is allowed in this case to take off the life support.
This is the view of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, other Fiqh councils and the majority of contemporary scholars, Soltan told IOL.
He stressed that there is no provision in Islam for killing oneself or another person to reduce his/her physical or emotional pain or suffering from sickness or disease.
Mercy killing is forbidden in Islam as it encompasses a positive role on the part of the physician to end the life of the patient and hasten his/her death via lethal injection, electric shock, a sharp weapon or any other way.
Somewhat presumptuous, I think.
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/images/schiavo_ct_scan.jpg
Schiavo's cat-scan
Terri Schiavo's life or death are unimportant. There is only one important question, whether Terri had a relationship with the living God. Without that life is meaningless, with it death is meaningless.
I cannot believe Antonin Scalia.
And they obeyed the petition.
