Death sentence appeals yes. However this was an issue over guardianship rights, nothing else.
So this must be an anti-religion issue for you rather than a Constitutional issue???? By the way I am not a Keyes, Terry, Jackson, etc... follower. But I do know my Bible.
As a Southern Baptist so do I. If Michael Schiavo has done something wrong, he will face a punishment. However at this time I am not willing to turn this power over to 436 political hacks that care less about the citizens of the respective states and more to pandering for votes
I support Tom DeLay and he was not in violation of the Constitution or overstepping his Constitutional authority in acting in this case. Not one court wrote that opinion.
Hmmmm, let's see....
A prevailing legal sentiment is that matters such as those in Theresa's case are best addressed by states, their legislatures and their courts – rather than by the federal judiciary.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)
In this context, it is vital to realize that Florida Statutes, Florida Rules of Evidence, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Florida case law were the basis for the past 13 years of litigation and conclusions of law in Theresa's case.
BTW, that was in the report to Gov Bush from Wolfson on this very issue. So it seems one of the most conservative men on the bench in the Supreme Court did write that opinion..I would reiterate
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