On the Past Days

[dilloduck]

Politics...pure politics..If this was his first term he wouldn't have my vote for a second..HE'S BLOWEN IT!!! Damn!!

what it exactly has he blown?

 

[MissileMan]

MissileMan,

Usually I roll my eyes when a person on a message board refuses to post links to back up their comments stating that if a responder is interested they should do the research themselves...it seems to me that if a person cares enough about talking about the issue they should be able to back it up with links themselves.

However, in this particular case...I HAVE posted links, NUMEROUS ones...to everything I have spoken about in this thread...why haven't you read any of them? Clicked on some of them? Or looked up any of this information yourself since you are so darned interested in talking about it?

All of this information is so easily attainable, it seems odd to me that you appear to be so unwilling to look for it...but for the sake of discussion, below you will find some links to the affidavit of the nurses, an article about doctors who disagree with the original doctors medical testimony...and a link showing that Judge Greer did look over the affidavitt of the nurse and then refused to allow it to be heard on the basis that he found it to be "incredulous."

As I said, I do not think that Greer did anything legally improper by not allowing the testimony to be heard...only that he did not allow evidence to be entered that might have changed some opinions about the woman in question. The Congress felt that there was enough of this type of evidence to ask the Federal court to hear the case with all of the new evidence that was not included in any of the previous cases...the federal court said no. And there you have it.

Heidi Law's Affidavit:
http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/hlawaffidavit.htm


Carla Iyer's Affidavit:
http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/CIyerAffidavit090203.htm

Judge Greer's reasoning for dismissing the nurses' affidavits, as well as several medical affidavits:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder0903.pdf

An article which discusses the orginal doctor and several neurologists with opposing opinions:
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200503281208.asp

I have been looking for information about this case, and the reason I have been asking for links is because a lot of what I've read in posts here has been in contradiction to what I've found on the subject. There are many people spreading misinformation, including yourself, right here in this post.

For instance, your own link describes how these affidavits were presented as part of an appeal to reopen the case. They were entered into the record, reviewed by the judge, and were either dismissed as rehashing evidence already in the record, or in the case of the nurses affidavits as pure fantasy that somehow wasn't available during the original hearings 5 years ago.

As for the article with several neurologists with opposing opinions, it references only one, who hasn't even examined Terry, and who doesn't necessarily disagree with the diagnosis, but at how it was reached.

My point is that there are a lot of people easily swayed by misstatements like these.

 

[dilloduck]

I have been looking for information about this case, and the reason I have been asking for links is because a lot of what I've read in posts here has been in contradiction to what I've found on the subject. There are many people spreading misinformation, including yourself, right here in this post.

For instance, your own link describes how these affidavits were presented as part of an appeal to reopen the case. They were entered into the record, reviewed by the judge, and were either dismissed as rehashing evidence already in the record, or in the case of the nurses affidavits as pure fantasy that somehow wasn't available during the original hearings 5 years ago.

As for the article with several neurologists with opposing opinions, it references only one, who hasn't even examined Terry, and who doesn't necessarily disagree with the diagnosis, but at how it was reached.

My point is that there are a lot of people easily swayed by misstatements like these.

Even judges

 

[NATO AIR]

Pres. Bush and the Congressional GOP did the right thing under the circumstances... better to abuse the power of the government to save a live rather than abuse it to take a life....

I applaud them for taking a stand. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I'll just use one of my favorite little quotes here.

"The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people, too much authority from the states, and too much liberty with the Constitution."

 

[dilloduck]

I'll just use one of my favorite little quotes here.

It was merely parents asking a branch of government to do their job---whats wrong with that

 

[SmarterThanYou]

It was merely parents asking a branch of government to do their job---whats wrong with that

it wasn't their job. It was the states job.

 

[dilloduck]

it wasn't their job. It was the states job.

The state didn't do their job in may peoples' opinions

 

[SmarterThanYou]

The state didn't do their job in may peoples' opinions

then fire them, replace them, vote them out, or even charge them, but don't abuse the power of government because a state legislature failed in their protection of a life.

 

[no1tovote4]

then fire them, replace them, vote them out, or even charge them, but don't abuse the power of government because a state legislature failed in their protection of a life.

In what way did they cross their Constitutional boundaries in limiting their power? All power from the courts comes from the SCOTUS and their jurisdiction is set by the Congress. There was nothing unconstitutional about this.

 

[dilloduck]

then fire them, replace them, vote them out, or even charge them, but don't abuse the power of government because a state legislature failed in their protection of a life.

It's only YOUR opinion that the power of the congressional and execitive branches have been abused---this is wide open for debate

Many say the judicial system is the one in the wrong here

 

[manu1959]

It was merely parents asking a branch of government to do their job---whats wrong with that

the parents have no legal standing in the eyes of the law....which is why the state has done nothing but uphold the legal standing of the husband

 

[SmarterThanYou]

In what way did they cross their Constitutional boundaries in limiting their power? All power from the courts comes from the SCOTUS and their jurisdiction is set by the Congress. There was nothing unconstitutional about this.

The congress does NOT make state courts. The STATE makes state courts. the federal courts CAN have REVIEW over the lower courts but the congress does not control them nor does it set their jurisdiction. If it did, then the state truly have no power or rights.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

It's only YOUR opinion that the power of the congressional and execitive branches have been abused---this is wide open for debate

Many say the judicial system is the one in the wrong here

and the florida legislature COULD have done something at the risk of total political failure. The ONLY way that this could have been avoided would have been for the state legislature to rewrite decades of precedent concerning spousal rights in the marriage union so that the capable spouse has no power, but THAT would have been political suicide for anyone voting for it.

The feds simply tried to backdoor legitimate states law and thats an egregious abuse of their power.

 

[dilloduck]

and the florida legislature COULD have done something at the risk of total political failure. The ONLY way that this could have been avoided would have been for the state legislature to rewrite decades of precedent concerning spousal rights in the marriage union so that the capable spouse has no power, but THAT would have been political suicide for anyone voting for it.

The feds simply tried to backdoor legitimate states law and thats an egregious abuse of their power.

Chicken shits----ALL of em---time to begin an OPEN constitutional battle !!

 

[manu1959]

It's only YOUR opinion that the power of the congressional and execitive branches have been abused---this is wide open for debate

Many say the judicial system is the one in the wrong here

the congressional and executive branches worked together to pass a law for the benifit of one person.....i belive that is specifically prohibited by the rules of the congress and the executive branches .... congress shall pass no law ... blah blah blah

as for the judicial system....they simple granted a person the right to die based upon the evidence presented .... then the judical system up held the decision time and again

 

[no1tovote4]

The congress does NOT make state courts. The STATE makes state courts. the federal courts CAN have REVIEW over the lower courts but the congress does not control them nor does it set their jurisdiction. If it did, then the state truly have no power or rights.

I suggest you read Article III of the Constitution.

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

and
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Congress sets the Jurisdiction of the Courts, in this case they added to the Jurisdiction of the Courts in order to hear a case. However they did not cross the line of powers granted by the Constitution.

 

[no1tovote4]

the congressional and executive branches worked together to pass a law for the benifit of one person.....i belive that is specifically prohibited by the rules of the congress and the executive branches .... congress shall pass no law ... blah blah blah

as for the judicial system....they simple granted a person the right to die based upon the evidence presented .... then the judical system up held the decision time and again

No it is only prohibited when considering a crime, it does not apply in this case.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I suggest you read Article III of the Constitution.




Congress sets the Jurisdiction of the Courts, in this case they added to the Jurisdiction of the Courts in order to hear a case. However they did not cross the line of powers granted by the Constitution.

I've read it, many times. what you fail to understand is that the constitution applies to the FEDERAL courts. the states courts are an entirely different matter and according to the 10th amendment, those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the state or the people.

 

[dilloduck]

I've read it, many times. what you fail to understand is that the constitution applies to the FEDERAL courts. the states courts are an entirely different matter and according to the 10th amendment, those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the state or the people.

Help me---what does the constitution say should happen when the judicial branch of our federal government screws up?