Posted on 03/31/2005 6:55:11 AM PST by Eurotwit
Breaking now on CNN
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Use the same ones issued to the Supremes that they use to discover words not in the Constitution.
BTW, How do you feel about the Senate rules as applied to advise and consent of judicial appointments?
The law states the incapacitated person has the right to counsel.
At the risk of being repetitive, we're supposed to oppose that kind of thing, remember? Even when it produces outcomes we like, because that process is inherently illegitimate.
BTW, How do you feel about the Senate rules as applied to advise and consent of judicial appointments?
How I feel is neither here nor there - what I know is that, just like due process, "advice and consent" is not defined within the Constitution, which pretty much leaves the definition up to the Senate. That being said, I happen to think that a simple majority vote suffices, so we should either elect Senators who will change the rules accordingly, or change the rules ourselves by amending the Constitution.
During the hearing to determine incapacity. If you want that to carry over beyond that, you need to change the law.
Maybe they're lost and think they're at DU. It amazes me some of their post. I have to keep reminding myself that I'm on FR, a conservative site when reading them.
I know. Why does Jim allow it? They are making up their own group over at Yahoo by using FR website. It is really a small group. I keep reading their posts threatening to leave, I just wish they would do it.
By the way, they are saying someone made up a list of them, you know, the pro-death crowd for Terri. Know anything about that? Private mail me if you wish.
By the way, I don't need a list, I am like an elephant, I have a long memory.
You are mistaken. More than just Catholics are upset about this. I am not Catholic for instance. You cannot profess to know the religious beliefs of every person who has spoken out abou this so don't try.
I do oppose that. But determining what a person wants is substantially different than putting words into a written document that all can see.
Nice tap dance, on the rules issue. The Constitution doesn't care what you think. The Constitution does state a rigorous limit for advice and consent concerning treaties here...
provided two thirds of the Senators present concur
Nope. That was not the argument made by the 11th. Try again.
If that's the case, then why did MS petition the court for an order declaring Terri could only receive communion twice (and stipulate WHO could give it to her), for permission to retain custody of Terri's body after her court ordered death and permission to have her cremated? If MS had ultimate authority these judgements would have been unnecessary and Greer should know that. There are 100's of guardians throughout the country that petition the court for permission to do this or that. The judge, supposedly using the Constitution and the law as a guide, grants or denies permission. Thus, it would appear that MS doesn't have absolute authority over decisions regarding Terri. Were he to petition the court for permission to euthanize her, Greer would have denied him because it's against the law. I assume, in addition to upholding FL law, judges there are also required to uphold the US Constitution as well...that is after all where citizens of every state (including dubiously diagnosed PVS citizens) are guaranteed individual rights. Arbitrarily deciding the number of times Terri can receive the sacraments and rituals of her church and who can administer those sacraments does tend to get in the way of that pesky "free exercise" clause.
Cindie
And what's the "rigorous limit" for judicial appointments? Shall we follow the argument you appear to be developing and assume it's also 2/3'rds? After all, if it says "2/3'rds" in one place, but doesn't specify somewhere else, that somewhere else must also really mean 2/3'rds. Maybe we can even say that "the concept still applies", right?
That was not the argument made by the 11th.
What, am I not permitted to share my own opinions as well?
The law states "right to counsel". The concept pushed by you is that someone else's counsel is sufficient. The concept I push is support for the absolute statement "right to counsel". That concept is counsel with no conflict of interest. Now tell me again that my concept does not apply but your concept does.
I don't know about a list of them, I can't stay too long over there, reminds me too much of DU. Just look at the tag lines they adopted. Their little clique sticks out like a sore thumb. There goes their incognito...lol
"But if she had stated while standing on her feet "I now want to starve myself to death" she would have been whisked off to the looney bin. Somehow her disability makes that better!"
End of life decision making. It happens all the time. Do you want to make it against the law for someone to deny medical service to themselves?
In some other context, which you're now trying to emanate into a general rule covering all contexts. So much for strict constructionism, I guess.
Ping
Just one more comment on the link--I would have never spotted and reported it to the mods if it wasn't for one of PJ's DUmmie FUnnies, in which a DU poster linked Turner with Rush, Sean, et al. If I hadn't read that, I would not have recognized the name and reported it.
I am sure the mods would have eventually caught it, but I was quick on the draw thanks to PJ!
I used to think some of them were untouchables also, but I think that has changed. Hopefully they will stay in the smoky backroom!
This is the context.
744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated.--
(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right:
(a) To have an annual review of the guardianship report and plan.
(b) To have continuing review of the need for restriction of his or her rights.
(c) To be restored to capacity at the earliest possible time.
(d) To be treated humanely, with dignity and respect, and to be protected against abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
(e) To have a qualified guardian.
(f) To remain as independent as possible, including having his or her preference as to place and standard of living honored, either as he or she expressed or demonstrated his or her preference prior to the determination of his or her incapacity or as he or she currently expresses his or her preference, insofar as such request is reasonable.
(g) To be properly educated.
(h) To receive prudent financial management for his or her property and to be informed how his or her property is being managed, if he or she has lost the right to manage property.
(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.
(j) To be free from discrimination because of his or her incapacity.
(k) To have access to the courts.
(l) To counsel.
(m) To receive visitors and communicate with others.
(n) To notice of all proceedings related to determination of capacity and guardianship, unless the court finds the incapacitated person lacks the ability to comprehend the notice.
(o) To privacy.
(2) Rights that may be removed from a person by an order determining incapacity include the right:
(a) To marry.
(b) To vote.
(c) To personally apply for government benefits.
(d) To have a driver's license.
(e) To travel.
(f) To seek or retain employment.
(3) Rights that may be removed from a person by an order determining incapacity and which may be delegated to the guardian include the right:
(a) To contract.
(b) To sue and defend lawsuits.
(c) To apply for government benefits.
(d) To manage property or to make any gift or disposition of property.
(e) To determine his or her residence.
(f) To consent to medical and mental health treatment.
(g) To make decisions about his or her social environment or other social aspects of his or her life.
(4) Without first obtaining specific authority from the court, as described in s. 744.3725, a guardian may not:
(a) Commit the ward to a facility, institution, or licensed service provider without formal placement proceeding, pursuant to chapter 393, chapter 394, or chapter 397.
(b) Consent on behalf of the ward to the performance on the ward of any experimental biomedical or behavioral procedure or to the participation by the ward in any biomedical or behavioral experiment. The court may permit such performance or participation only if:
1. It is of direct benefit to, and is intended to preserve the life of or prevent serious impairment to the mental or physical health of the ward; or
2. It is intended to assist the ward to develop or regain his or her abilities.
(c) Initiate a petition for dissolution of marriage for the ward.
(d) Consent on behalf of the ward to termination of the ward's parental rights.
(e) Consent on behalf of the ward to the performance of a sterilization or abortion procedure on the ward.
Now tell me is privacy a one time deal as you purport that counsel is?
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.