Posted on 03/26/2005 1:34:45 AM PST by Destro
March 25, 2005
COMMENTARY
Why Schiavo's Parents Didn't Have a Case
By Andrew Cohen, Andrew Cohen is CBS News' legal analyst.
Terri Schiavo's parents did not lose their federal case because they didn't try hard enough. They didn't lose their case because everyone conspired against them. They didn't lose it because Congress ticked off the judiciary over the weekend with its over-the-top custom-made legislation. They didn't lose it for lack of money or because they failed to file a court paper on time. They didn't lose it because the laws are unfair or because bureaucrats sometimes can be arbitrary and capricious.
The Schindlers lost their case and their cause — and soon probably their daughter — because in the end they were making claims the legal system has never been able or willing to recognize. They lost because they long ago ran out of good arguments to make — those arguments having been reasonably rejected by state judge after judge — and thus were left with only lame ones. And they lost because in every case someone has to win and someone has to lose. That's the way it works in our system of government. It isn't pretty, and sometimes it's unfair. But it's reality.
Especially during this final round of review, orchestrated by Congress' extraordinary attempt at a "do-over" for the couple, Schiavo's parents lost appeal after appeal specifically because they were asking the federal courts to declare that their constitutional rights had been violated by the Florida state court rulings in the case. They were arguing, in other words, thanks in part to their custom-made congressional legislation, that the federal Constitution gave them the right as losers in state court to get a new, full-blown trial in federal court.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Well then clearly that "etc." includes wanting to see Terri dead for the sake of some abstract man-made principles. Thanks for admitting it.
There is always a fact pattern behind a statute. I can't be conviceted of speeding just because there is a speeding statute. There has to be evidence that I acted in such a way as to break the statute.
The FL statutory scheme for protection of incapacitated patients also has a fact pattern in the Schiavo case. IMO, Greer wrongly found that the patient wished to die, And when the facts are found wrong, the legal wheels don't care.
Just as though some cop said I was driving 110 MPH northbound on I-95, when in fact I wasn't. Nothing the accused can do. In Terri's case, nothing the patient can do.
You go ahead and defend this on legal grounds. Obviously, you are a smart person, and a very capable advocate.
Maybe it's just cause I was born in the "Show Me State"...but I would still think the judge would want to see this with his own eyes.
"The judge going there or any other layman going there would be meaningless and misleading -"
SO then the next time a judge goes to a crime scene (yes I KNOW there was no crime comitted here...it's an example)you're saying that it's wrong for him to go to the scene and get a "feel" for the event becasue in your words "The judge going there or any other layman going there would be meaningless and misleading"?
"Just as though some cop said I was driving 110 MPH northbound on I-95, when in fact I wasn't. Nothing the accused can do."
Ummm ever heard of hiring a lawyer and fighting the ticket?
Not a dork - I thought you missed the statement the first time - he wa snot the court appointed doctor but the husbad'd expert. Many lied mischartaxhterized that guy as the guy Greer appointed - ain't the case.
No it wouldn't be, don't let him fool you with his slick talk. If the doc says there are some visible signs or absence thereof showing PVS or dorkheadedness or whatever diagnosis, then the doc can show the judge, the judge doesn't just have to take the doc's word for it.
Thanks.
That's not what I said. What I said is that there is no meaningful distinction which 90% of neurologists can recognize reproduceably between "PVS" and "almost-PVS", and, this being so, that the use of "PVS" as permission for killing is not a reasonable basis for public policy.
Even if she had a living will asking for her life to end
Nice try, but I work with "living wills" every day.
A "living will" that asks for death is not a consent to murder-you cannot in fact consent to be murdered, AFAIK, Jack Kervorkin is still in prison.
So the issue does not turn on whether or not you have a so-called "living will", but rather, on the nature of your life and the measures used to end it.
If the nature of your life and the means used to end it are morally licit, you don't need a living will. If they're not morally licit, a living will protects no one.
Just ask Dr. K.
Can you produce a primary source? You have your double referenced AP article and your huffing and puffing against my article. Why would you have shown it to me in a different media unless you were trying to buffalo me into thinking you had multiple attestations when you didn't?
Not a dork - I thought you missed the statement the first time - he was not the court appointed doctor but the husband expert. Many lied mischarcterized that guy as the guy Greer appointed - ain't the case. Time for bed!
Citing CNN as a source might be a sin, but Michael Schiavo's lawyer is hardly likely to make a mistake like that in court.
Terminal, I might add, only becuase the court ordered suspension of food and sustenance.
Yes, I know that the court found Terri's wishes were to die. I am convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the court got that finding of fact wrong.
Schiavo doctor a right-to-death activist Neurologist chosen by husband addressed Hemlock Society
Ok so now you know - not chosen by Greer but he was one of the three doctors testifying before Greer - Dr. Ronald Cranford was the husband's choice - the parents had one - who sucked so bad he brought no evidence - and a court appointed neutral doctor.
At the least she didn't want to be starved.
OK, so who was Dr. Neutral then?
Of course. The courts can't be the villain. The courts are the good guys! Duh. How could I have been so blind. Thank you for helping me see!
No I'm not fooled. I asked the question precisely because of the outlandishness of his belief as to why he thinks the judge should not go to see Terri with his own two eyes.
"Plaintiff's allegation that (Circuit Court Judge George Greer, the presiding state judge in the case) denied Theresa Schiavo access to court by not requiring her presence is without merit." "With respect to plaintiff's contention that Judge Greer violated Theresa Schiavo's procedural due process rights by failing to appoint a guardian, the record belies this contention. ... There would be no constitutional deprivation here because three guardians were appointed to represent Theresa Schiavo's interests over the course of the litigation."
There was several months of therapy, including that brain electrode business (and how do we know that didn't fry her brains out) and then Terri began to decline and he just hung it up and wouldn't let anyone else try for a second rally in her health.
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.