Why Schiavo's Parents Didn't Have a Case

latimes.com ^ | March 25, 2005 | Andrew Cohen

[Hank Rearden]

So should "states rights" trump God's law?

In a theocracy, no. That well-known death cult, Islam, has many examples of this.

[xzins]

I do not think that the law equals justice. The law simply equals the current way in which we do things. Hopefully, it strives to be justice, but when it is apparent that it is not, then it is the law that should give way and not justice.

Personally, I could care less if Judge Greer has accurately or adequately applied current law. If current law means that either the Judge or Schivo can deny Terri even natural means of eating and drinking, then the law if wrong....AND it should be circumvented, changed, ignored....etc.

I'm from the non-lawyer class, and as I listen to this discussion saying Greer has acted within the law, then it makes me sick that I live in a country where anal-retentive people apparently hold all the justice cards.

The best thing Pres. Bush could do is to assign a few farmers, business owners, and engineers to seats on the judiciary to include the Supreme Court. The people holding those seats currently make me sick to my stomach.

[txradioguy]

So you're saying that the Founding Fathers were wrong for basing the Bill of Rights and the COnstitution on the 10 Commandments and talking about God given liberties and such?

We based the founding doccuments on things that are said inthe bible and YOU wanna equate that to radical Shia Islam?

(scratching head)

[txradioguy]

"Why didn't at least Thomas & Scalia dissent when the U.S.S.C. refused to hear the case? Do you think it was due to political expediency? Are they friends of Greer?

The ONLY reason that the SCOTUS did not agree to hear the case is because it only involved one person.

"You're the one who appears to be continuing to assert that even Federal judges who don't have to stand for election are supporting this due to political expediency."

And I haven't seen anything in this case to make me think otherwise.

[blueriver]

Is giving a person water also considered life support under Fl law>- or did maybe judge greer add a little new law of his own when he declared that no one could bring her water.

[RichInOC]

...No decision at the state level ever would be final, because every losing litigant at the state court level would be able to walk into federal court and declare a federal constitutional violation. State court trials thus would become like practice sessions and the federal courts, which are supposed to be of "limited jurisdiction," resolving only certain kinds of disputes, would become free-for-alls.

Mr. Cohen...congratulations. You have just described the capital-appeals process in California. Trust me, you do not want to get me started on whether the guys at San Quentin and the girls at Chowchilla are more deserving of life than Terri Schiavo. You do not want to go anywhere near there.

[LifeOrGoods?]

In capital cases, for example, the law requires a federal review of a state court death penalty conviction. In such cases, the government is seeking to kill someone on behalf of the people. In the Schiavo case, a private guardian (a husband) was seeking permission to fulfill his wife's wishes, as determined by the state court of Florida. Yes, there is a difference, one that has been recognized in law and tradition.

Both laws don't protect the innocent.

[LifeOrGoods?]

So should "states rights" trump God's law?

These must be the same Democrats who wanted slavery in the name of states' rights. When the individual's right is violated by the state, the federal government takes up for the individual.

[Destro]

Yes it is - you want the link to the statue?

[txradioguy]

My point exactly.

[AmericanChef]

OK, let's assume there are mistakes all the way around the board. Right, left, judges, laws - everything.

Where does it say that extraordinary circumstances - and this clearly is one, as there are so many unanswered questions - cannot be dealt with in an extraordinary way? It's not exactly unheard of, duh.

Clearly you don't give a rip about Terri's life. To you it's all politics and "revenge" for what you perceive is bad policy. You clearly want the poor gal to die to make a point. That's really sick.

[LifeOrGoods?]

I want to give you a fair chance here, Destro. I want to know your motives behind backing the descision. And I would like to add, I do respect the fact that you do know the law in this situation. We may differ on the interpretation of it, but you have done your homework here and are a valuable dessenter in this sense.

Do you think, law or no law, a person should or should not be killed if they are determined to be of no value to a society? Are you for the death pentalty of a murderer?

What is the highest moral law in your opinion? Does God have any right in human society?

Is M. Schiavo, not in a legal sense, but in your own, common-sense opinion, fit to be the legal guardian in this case?

And of course, I would like to know the reason why to all these questions.

Please and thank you.

[Destro]

I don't know the specifics - my argument is that as someone whose familiarity with the case is from reading the news and the law - this judge was not an activist judge and the law did not allow him much wiggle room - all possible reviews of mistakes were made - multiple appeals and reviews - so my conclusion is that those that said this was judicial activism were wrong - it was not - he upheld the law -don't like the law change it.

I accept the notion that people who are described as being in a PVS can be removed from life support (under Florida and Texas law that includes feeding tube). The issue with many is that they did not accept that Terri was in a PVS. The court ruled that she was based on 3 testimonies the husband's medical team, the parents' medical team and a court appointed medical team - the court appointed doctor sided with the husband's doctors that she was indeed in a PVS. Also under Florida law he was the next of kin so the decision fell on him without a written will operating.

I don't even know how the law can be changed - deny husband's right in favor of parents? joint parent and husband rights? Parents vs Granparents when it is a child? The law likes a small chain of command in such things.

Lastly, I do think the husband was a scum bag - it could be the judge thought him a scum bag as well - but the law makes no provision for scum bags as next of kin - the judge would have become an activist judge if he inserted himself in here. I also think the parents and husband are at equal fault over using Terri as a football and both sides allowed themselves to become political footballs - going public with what should be a private decision.

Very complicated, but my position is a conservative based one - support for the institution of marriage, state's rights, seperation of powers with checks and balances.

[LifeOrGoods?]

Lastly, I do think the husband was a scum bag - it could be the judge thought him a scum bag as well - but the law makes no provision for scum bags as next of kin - the judge would have become an activist judge if he inserted himself in here.

Thank you for your reply.

Do think, if it was legal, in your opinion, and if there was a legal guardian suitable for Terri, that she should have received another guardian?

[Destro]

Terri went through 4 guardians her husband was first followed b 3 more. One guardian agreed with the doctors that Terri was in PVS but told the court because the husband had a conflict of interest the request for Terri to be removed from life support should be denied. I dont know why a 4th and final guardian was appointed who agreed with removing life support. I think the parents had bad representation - and it probably was bad because instead of seeking to keep her on life support they sought to overturn the law - they could not be appointed next of kin, etc. They fought the legal battles against the husband not for their daughter.

Anyway I don't condone euthanasia or abortion - but I don't consider allowing someone who is in a PVS to be euthanasia because the brain damage is in the part of the brain where the human consciousness resides so it is a partial death of the body - with only the automatic portions of the nervous system functioning. Think of it as a car that was damaged in an accident - the driver (the brain) is killed and the car drives in circles as long as gastank is kept full.