judicial filibuster=anti-christian???

CivilLiberty said:
Choice of the courts? No, not the choice of the courts.

Terri's legal guardian, and the only person with the legal authority over her treatment, was Terri's husband. Terri, the person, died some 15 years ago. The vegetable that was left was being kept alive by artificial means - removing the artificial means was Terri's wish (according to her guardian), which her guardian carried out.

The courts did not make this decision - the courts only ruled that, as per decades of law and legal precedent, that Michael, as guardian, had that sole right to carry out Terri's wish. These are not activist judges just because you don't like their ruling - they were ruling for the LAW as written and as developed in case/common law over history.

Interestingly, in Texas, if you have no hope of recovery they'll pull the plug after 10 days.


A

quote the whole law dude--don't take things out of context
 
dilloduck said:
quote the whole law dude--don't take things out of context


Okay, no chance of recovery, and you can't afford to continue treatment...

I'm not saying I'm opposed to this policy, I just find it interesting in view of Schiavo.

A
 
CivilLiberty said:
Okay, no chance of recovery, and you can't afford to continue treatment...

I'm not saying I'm opposed to this policy, I just find it interesting in view of Schiavo.

A

Give it a month or 2---it will be declared unconstitutional
 
CivilLiberty said:
Terri, the person, died some 15 years ago. The vegetable that was left was being kept alive by artificial means - removing the artificial means was Terri's wish (according to her guardian), which her guardian carried out.

You amaze me, you really do. Don't you think calling someone who needs food, realies on oxygen, whose heart is beating, whose lungs are taking in air, whose brain, however damaged, is still active, who is made of cells, "dead" -- Do you really see no problem with calling her dead. Sorry the "vegetable" took so damnably long to finally croak. How very Orwellian of you.
 
I wonder if it would have been terri's wish for her husband to remain her husband and legal guardian after he shacked up with another woman. What say you CL?
 
rtwngAvngr said:
I wonder if it would have been terri's wish for her husband to remain her husband and legal guardian after he shacked up with another woman. What say you CL?

Now, now now, RWA, you know perfectly well how fallacious that argument is. Besides, spousal rights trump everything! Because even if the man gained a lot of money from her death and the ability to marry his mistress, he is still her spouse, and therefore beyond reproach! Besides, a judge said so! A Judge! And judges are always right! That's why they're judges! Get it?
 
dilloduck said:
Give it a month or 2---it will be declared unconstitutional


If I'm not mistaken it's been in place since Bush was Gov. there, and I'm unaware of any constitutional challenges.

And there's nothing in the constitution that states that the government must provide medical care.

A
 
You know the Dems must not be getting their way when they start to shriek about "judicial tyranny." :baby: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, anyone? :chains:
 
CivilLiberty said:
And there's nothing in the constitution that states that the government must provide medical care.

Hell, I must be looking at the wrong Constitution, but I don't see anything in there about separation of church and state either. :lame2:
 
rtwngAvngr said:
I wonder if it would have been terri's wish for her husband to remain her husband and legal guardian after he shacked up with another woman. What say you CL?


I don't really see the relevance.

All this has to do with the issue of "living wills" and legal guardianship.

As it happens I wrote a couple articles on the subject last year, and there's so much hype and hysteria it's hard to see the reality.

Much of this hype and hysteria comes from the money grubbing parents, who wanted a piece of the court settlement. The parents are not altruistic in this case, though they have attempted to paint themselves the victims - they have profited financially from their hyping of the tragedy.


If I were PVS, I would want my wife to get on with her life and find another man. And I wouldn't want to lay prostate on a bed with a feeding tube in my belly for 15 years, that's for certain.


You or I cannot say what Terri wanted. The LAW shows that Michael is the only one who can, and the courts - both federal and state, and through many many judges, all found the same.


A judge is not an "activist" judge because they don't rule the way you want them to. These judges ruled on the LAW, as it their job.

It's interesting that the Florida legislature made no effort to CHANGE THE LAW regarding guardianship. The judges ruled ON THE LAW, had they ruled against the law, (the way you apparently wanted them to) THEN they would have been "activist".


Best regards,


Andy
 
CivilLiberty said:
Terri, the person, died some 15 years ago. The vegetable that was left was being kept alive by artificial means - removing the artificial means was Terri's wish (according to her guardian), which her guardian carried out.

CivilLiberty, the person, died some two months ago after a unusually big hit off the bong. The vegtable that is being kept alive by artifical means continues to post stupid crap on this website. Let's starve him too! :D :D
 
CivilLiberty said:
I don't really see the relevance.

All this has to do with the issue of "living wills" and legal guardianship.

As it happens I wrote a couple articles on the subject last year, and there's so much hype and hysteria it's hard to see the reality.

Much of this hype and hysteria comes from the money grubbing parents, who wanted a piece of the court settlement. The parents are not altruistic in this case, though they have attempted to paint themselves the victims - they have profited financially from their hyping of the tragedy.


If I were PVS, I would want my wife to get on with her life and find another man. And I wouldn't want to lay prostate on a bed with a feeding tube in my belly for 15 years, that's for certain.


You or I cannot say what Terri wanted. The LAW shows that Michael is the only one who can, and the courts - both federal and state, and through many many judges, all found the same.


A judge is not an "activist" judge because they don't rule the way you want them to. These judges ruled on the LAW, as it their job.

It's interesting that the Florida legislature made no effort to CHANGE THE LAW regarding guardianship. The judges ruled ON THE LAW, had they ruled against the law, (the way you apparently wanted them to) THEN they would have been "activist".


Best regards,


Andy

Surely you can see the relevance. Why should he have remained her guardian when he had a new wife, especially when her parents were willing to assume the responsibilities. I guess the courts decided to err on the side of death.

And then their continual regurgitation of the same spurious "finding of fact" through multiple hearings should have been enough to make a puke eater like yourself ill.
 
Much of this hype and hysteria comes from the money grubbing parents, who wanted a piece of the court settlement. The parents are not altruistic in this case, though they have attempted to paint themselves the victims - they have profited financially from their hyping of the tragedy.

Shall I tell you profited? Michael Schiavo. That's who.

He told the courts that he was going to become a nurse to take better care of his wife. He told the courts that any monies she was awarded would be used strictly for her care and therapy..

Sure. He became a nurse - he didn't offer her a damn bit of care, however - he used it as a sob story to get the jury to award them more money. More than half of the money SHE won (750,000) went to pay his lawyers.. Approx. $386k to one lawyer, $50k to another, $11k to himself for misc. expenses (I wonder if his new girlfriends engagement ring came out of that money)
 
Shattered said:
Shall I tell you profited? Michael Schiavo. That's who.

He told the courts that he was going to become a nurse to take better care of his wife. He told the courts that any monies she was awarded would be used strictly for her care and therapy..

Sure. He became a nurse - he didn't offer her a damn bit of care, however - he used it as a sob story to get the jury to award them more money. More than half of the money SHE won (750,000) went to pay his lawyers.. Approx. $386k to one lawyer, $50k to another, $11k to himself for misc. expenses (I wonder if his new girlfriends engagement ring came out of that money)


1) Lawyers are traditionally paid from the settlement, that's how it works in 99.999% of injury cases. The lawyers took their expenses and fees from the total of the settlement.

2) After the lawyers were paid, the money she won went to her care, feeding, and rehabilitation attempts.

3) The parents were not causing a fuss, until Michael refused to give them any of the settlement money, using it instead for rehabilitation efforts for Terri. And when rehab failed after a prolonged time, her care and feeding.

4)Her parents were after the money the entire time - in fact, her money grubbing parents used their "pleas for sympathy" to generate huge donations - and they turned around and sold those lists of addresses of donors FOR A PROFIT to other organizations.

5) Her parents are publicity hungry scum suckers, and with a few publicity seeking doctors have attempted to manipulate public opinion over a matter where they have no legal case whatsoever. This includes a fraudulent video tape, and "purchased" statements from "doctors" on their payroll.



Best,


Andy
 
CivilLiberty said:
1) Lawyers are traditionally paid from the settlement, that's how it works in 99.999% of injury cases. The lawyers took their expenses and fees from the total of the settlement.

2) After the lawyers were paid, the money she won went to her care, feeding, and rehabilitation attempts.

3) The parents were not causing a fuss, until Michael refused to give them any of the settlement money, using it instead for rehabilitation efforts for Terri. And when rehab failed after a prolonged time, her care and feeding.

4)Her parents were after the money the entire time - in fact, her money grubbing parents used their "pleas for sympathy" to generate huge donations - and they turned around and sold those lists of addresses of donors FOR A PROFIT to other organizations.

5) Her parents are publicity hungry scum suckers, and with a few publicity seeking doctors have attempted to manipulate public opinion over a matter where they have no legal case whatsoever. This includes a fraudulent video tape, and "purchased" statements from "doctors" on their payroll.



Best,


Andy

:link:
 
CivilLiberty said:
1) Lawyers are traditionally paid from the settlement, that's how it works in 99.999% of injury cases. The lawyers took their expenses and fees from the total of the settlement.

2) After the lawyers were paid, the money she won went to her care, feeding, and rehabilitation attempts.

3) The parents were not causing a fuss, until Michael refused to give them any of the settlement money, using it instead for rehabilitation efforts for Terri. And when rehab failed after a prolonged time, her care and feeding.

4)Her parents were after the money the entire time - in fact, her money grubbing parents used their "pleas for sympathy" to generate huge donations - and they turned around and sold those lists of addresses of donors FOR A PROFIT to other organizations.

5) Her parents are publicity hungry scum suckers, and with a few publicity seeking doctors have attempted to manipulate public opinion over a matter where they have no legal case whatsoever. This includes a fraudulent video tape, and "purchased" statements from "doctors" on their payroll.



Best,


Andy


Why do you worship death?
 
This includes a fraudulent video tape, and "purchased" statements from "doctors" on their payroll.

What do you have to back that accusation up?
 
Husband with mistress, and kids by mistress, and gained lots of money from death = noble soul who only wants whats best

parents who don't want to see their daughter starve to death = money hungry scum-suckers


You are your own counter-point. It's like when someone goes on a rant about how Jews in WWII deserved what they got. What the hell can you say to someone so detached?
 
CivilLiberty said:
Choice of the courts? No, not the choice of the courts.

Terri's legal guardian, and the only person with the legal authority over her treatment, was Terri's husband. Terri, the person, died some 15 years ago. The vegetable that was left was being kept alive by artificial means - removing the artificial means was Terri's wish (according to her guardian), which her guardian carried out.

The courts did not make this decision - the courts only ruled that, as per decades of law and legal precedent, that Michael, as guardian, had that sole right to carry out Terri's wish. These are not activist judges just because you don't like their ruling - they were ruling for the LAW as written and as developed in case/common law over history.

Interestingly, in Texas, if you have no hope of recovery they'll pull the plug after 10 days.


A

You think it was not the choice of the court to kill Terri? Not true. The Court - Judge Greer - made plenty of CHOICES:

1. Choice to ignore the guardian ad litem, Richard Pearse, who reported that Michael's decision-making might be influenced by his potentiality to inherit the rest of Terri's estate.
2. Choice to not allow swallowing tests
3. Choice to allow Michael to limit the visits of Terri's own mother and father and to stop them from putting up pictures for Terri to look at. (what bastards!)
4. Choice not to recuse himself at the request of the Schindlers
5. Choice to ignore the testimony of several others who had Terri's interest at heart.
6. Choice to not let the Schindler's doctors examine Terri
7. Choice to ignore Michael's abuse and neglect of Terri
8. Choice to ignore the U.S. House of Representatives subpoenas and go ahead with the tube removal.
9. Choice to ignore the Pope himself about the Catholic stance on this issue - even though Terri was a Catholic

All these COURT CHOICES added up to the death of Terri Schiavo.

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm
 
ScreamingEagle said:
You think it was not the choice of the court to kill Terri? Not true. The Court - Judge Greer - made plenty of CHOICES:

1. Choice to ignore the guardian ad litem, Richard Pearse, who reported that Michael's decision-making might be influenced by his potentiality to inherit the rest of Terri's estate.
2. Choice to not allow swallowing tests
3. Choice to allow Michael to limit the visits of Terri's own mother and father and to stop them from putting up pictures for Terri to look at. (what bastards!)
4. Choice not to recuse himself at the request of the Schindlers
5. Choice to ignore the testimony of several others who had Terri's interest at heart.
6. Choice to not let the Schindler's doctors examine Terri
7. Choice to ignore Michael's abuse and neglect of Terri
8. Choice to ignore the U.S. House of Representatives subpoenas and go ahead with the tube removal.
9. Choice to ignore the Pope himself about the Catholic stance on this issue - even though Terri was a Catholic

All these COURT CHOICES added up to the death of Terri Schiavo.

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm

Micheal was offered more money to keep Terri alive by pro-lifers than he would gain through insurance.

Swallowing prooves conciousness? Let's drop some food in front of her, and if she picks it up and swallows it without a feeding tube in her she deserves to live.

No relevance to Terri's death

Deciding the case the other way would ignore Micheal's testimony

Is something wrong with letting independent doctors examine her, because that's what happened?

Because the abuse is fictional or extremely speculative at best

The court system doesn't answer to Congress

The court system doesn't answer to the Catholic Church
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top