Civil Disobedience and Terry Schaivo

[Nienna]

This is an interesting possibility. But should hospital rooms be used to keep people in a "fantasy" land?

Hospitals are meant to heal and habilitate, not perpetuate uncertain "fantasy" states.

My problem is that congress is forcing to keep this woman alive while health care for plenty of aware people is disappearing. I guarantee you that if Schiavo had been some homeless woman with no insurance she wouldn't had been allowed to ever get plugged into the feeding tube in the first place.

I find this utilitarian view very disturbing. Each life is precious, whether the life of a mentally handicapped woman, a homeless woman or a crown prince.

 

[Nienna]

Yeah, I saw that crap, too. So cleverly worded: "Republicans distanced themselves from a memo...". No specifics on the memo. No attempt to establish its veracity - only the one cryptic reference. Was it composed on a 1928 Underwood? Furtively scrawled on a piece of toilet paper by Sandy Berger? We just don't know.

Frankly, I'm amazed the mainstream media has the guts to use the word, "memo" in this way. I guess seeing Dan Rather publicly disemboweled, and watching their own ratings go into a free-fall as Americans learn who can and can't be trusted to report the simple truth, didn't take.

Maybe aversion therapy would help.

I was reminded of "Rathergate," myself! :cof:

 

[musicman]

I was reminded of "Rathergate," myself! :cof:

LOL! When are they going to learn to stop playing with memos? Does a memo have to actually blow up in their hands before the LMM realize that those things are NOT TOYS???!!!

 

[dilloduck]

As long as everyone is more interested in 'right and wrong', or rather, BEING right and proclaiming everyone else wrong, we will continue to fail....ourselves and others alike.

Thats a sad, sad thing too......because last I checked, the whole right and wrong thing is human nature.

I will never understand why the crux of whatever issue tends to get buried under crapola like that. :huh:

Agreed--pointing fingers only makes things disappear if your a magician

doing "right" things makes a difference

 

[sitarro]

"THEY"???!!! What a humorous little person you are.
History would seem to indicate that Dr. King's head was up his ass on this one.

I love it when ***** white liberal apologist bring out a quote from Martin Luther King to try to rip off some street credit . I always found King to be no better than Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton in sincerity or intelligence , he was just the first fiery black preacher to make national news , Richard Pryor always did a great immitation. I am not really impressed with anything I heard him say.
Most of the blacks that I have known and associated with thought that liberal black wannabes were pathetic . . . But I'm sure they love and respect you Botox.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

If the spouse can't communicate, all you have to say is that my spouse wanted to die if this ever happened to him/her.

Or at least wait for seven years and the end of a million dollar law suit and then say it.

 

[dilloduck]

unfolding on fox------watch the civil disobedience----staged nevertheless--a beginning maybe?

 

[ReillyT]

That still doesn't mean that it was decided beyond reasonable doubt, only to the "preponderance of evidence" as this was not a criminal case. I believe that in matters of life or death it is important to decide with a certainty, and not to allow such doubt to be present. Since in this case the law only allows for a specific standard to be placed it would be necessary to review the law, not the action of the court.

You keep missing the fact that I do not object to the decisions of the Judges, they made the correct decisions according to current FL law. I simply am of the opinion that the laws should be reviewed and changed in order to better protect the patient in cases where there is clear doubt as to the wishes of the patient, as in this one.

The standard was "clear and convincing evidence," a higher standard than "preponderance of the evidence."

 

[no1tovote4]

The standard was "clear and convincing evidence," a higher standard than "preponderance of the evidence."

But not as high as beyond reasonable doubt, where I believe the standard should be when making decisions considering the life of a person. Clearly reasonable people can doubt whether this was her wishes based on the evidence at hand.

 

[ReillyT]

But not as high as beyond reasonable doubt, where I believe the standard should be when making decisions considering the life of a person. Clearly reasonable people can doubt whether this was her wishes based on the evidence at hand.

Perhaps some people, but evidently none the 19 or so judges who have had a hand in the case since it started.

 

[Bonnie]

The standard was "clear and convincing evidence," a higher standard than "preponderance of the evidence."

IN that case why are all these judges only looking at the evidence that was gathered 8 years ago? The whole purpose of Congress interveneing was to have the federal judge look at ALL the evidence old an new, he simply did not do that! So again I ask how is Terri getting her due process under these conditions.

The judge should be looking at the sworn afidavits by nurses who tended to Terri, the fact that Michael has been living with another woman and has two children by her, the doctors who feel she can be rehabilitated. It seems to me when deciding a persons fate all possible information should be factored in.

 

[dilloduck]

IN that case why are all these judges only looking at the evidence that was gathered 8 years ago? The whole purpose of Congress interveneing was to have the federal judge look at ALL the evidence old an new, he simply did not do that! So again I ask how is Terri getting her due process under these conditions.

The judge should be looking at the sworn afidavits by nurses who tended to Terri, the fact that Michael has been living with another woman and has two children by her, the doctors who feel she can be rehabilitated. It seems to me when deciding a persons fate all possible information should be factored in.

ya where the hell are all these activists judges who make up their OWN laws?

 

[no1tovote4]

Perhaps some people, but evidently none the 19 or so judges who have had a hand in the case since it started.

That is because the State law in FL only requires "clear and convincing" and allows the judges to refuse to listen to whichever testimony they want.

Such as the Nurse who reported the insulin injections...

Clear and convincing is too open-ended, the other judges reviewed what the first decided and whether to re-open the case, not allowing any more evidence to be entered than the first.

All of this is based on the laws in FL. If I lived there I would be all over my representative in the State Legislature to get the laws changed so that there could be a clearer interpretation so that those who were innocent of crime could get at least the same protection as those who are convicted of a crime.

 

[ReillyT]

IN that case why are all these judges only looking at the evidence that was gathered 8 years ago? The whole purpose of Congress interveneing was to have the federal judge look at ALL the evidence old an new, he simply did not do that! So again I ask how is Terri getting her due process under these conditions.

The judge should be looking at the sworn afidavits by nurses who tended to Terri, the fact that Michael has been living with another woman and has two children by her, the doctors who feel she can be rehabilitated. It seems to me when deciding a persons fate all possible information should be factored in.

Where to start? First, the Schindlers can always bring move a court to reconsider a decision based upon new evidence, and they have done so. The courts have been uniformly unmoved by this new evidence. In short, they either didn't think the evidence was relevant or dismissed its credibility.

Second, a federal court is constrained to hear only cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the U.S. Congress. That is the extent of the jurisdiction of U.S. courts under the Constitution, and Congress can only expand their jurisdiction to this extent. Congress does not have Constitutional authority to pass laws dealing with probate matters in the like. This is a general police power type of law that only states may pass. The Constitution does provide the power to ensure that persons are not deprived of life, liberty or property by the government without due process of the law. That is the only kind of case that a federal court could hear in this matter, regardless of what Congress might have hoped they do. In order to determine whether a person has received due process, the court looks to determine whether they (in this case, either Terri or the Schindlers) have had a full and fair opportunity to present their case before an impartial decision-maker. It is clear from the record of litigation that they have, and the federal courts have found precisely this. A federal court cannot make a factual determination on what Terri's wishes actually are. That is not the type of case the Constitution allows, and it has nonetheless already been decided in the state courts of Florida.

 

[dilloduck]

Where to start? First, the Schindlers can always bring move a court to reconsider a decision based upon new evidence, and they have done so. The courts have been uniformly unmoved by this new evidence. In short, they either didn't think the evidence was relevant or dismissed its credibility.

Second, a federal court is constrained to hear only cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the U.S. Congress. That is the extent of the jurisdiction of U.S. courts under the Constitution, and Congress can only expand their jurisdiction to this extent. Congress does not have Constitutional authority to pass laws dealing with probate matters in the like. This is a general police power type of law that only states may pass. The Constitution does provide the power to ensure that persons are not deprived of life, liberty or property by the government without due process of the law. That is the only kind of case that a federal court could hear in this matter, regardless of what Congress might have hoped they do. In order to determine whether a person has received due process, the court looks to determine whether they (in this case, either Terri or the Schindlers) have had a full and fair opportunity to present their case before an impartial decision-maker. It is clear from the record of litigation that they have, and the federal courts have found precisely this. A federal court cannot make a factual determination on what Terri's wishes actually are. That is not the type of case the Constitution allows, and it has nonetheless already been decided in the state courts of Florida.

Garbage--judges do anything they want to these days !

 

[ReillyT]

That is because the State law in FL only requires "clear and convincing" and allows the judges to refuse to listen to whichever testimony they want.

Such as the Nurse who reported the insulin injections...

Clear and convincing is too open-ended, the other judges reviewed what the first decided and whether to re-open the case, not allowing any more evidence to be entered than the first.

All of this is based on the laws in FL. If I lived there I would be all over my representative in the State Legislature to get the laws changed so that there could be a clearer interpretation so that those who were innocent of crime could get at least the same protection as those who are convicted of a crime.

A judge cannot refuse to listen to whichever evidence he wants. He can refuse to listen to evidence that was clearly available to a party in the first instance but not presented at that time. Otherwise, a judge as decision-maker must examine all the available evidence but must only give it the weight he or she feel it deserves based upon its relevance and credibility. In this particular case, new evidence was presented to the judge as late as 2001. The judge in the case either found that the new evidence was not relevant, not credible, or insufficient to allow the court to reach a different decision than it did in the first case.

 

[ReillyT]

Garbage--judges do anything they want to these days !

Eloquently put. Generally wrong, but eloquent.

 

[dilloduck]

A judge cannot refuse to listen to whichever evidence he wants. He can refuse to listen to evidence that was clearly available to a party in the first instance but not presented at that time. Otherwise, a judge as decision-maker must examine all the available evidence but must only give it the weight he or she feel it deserves based upon its relevance and credibility. In this particular case, new evidence was presented to the judge as late as 2001. The judge in the case either found that the new evidence was not relevant, not credible, or insufficient to allow the court to reach a different decision than it did in the first case.

This is hyterical---you really believe judges feel bound by any rules or are held accountable???

 

[rtwngAvngr]

A judge cannot refuse to listen to whichever evidence he wants. He can refuse to listen to evidence that was clearly available to a party in the first instance but not presented at that time. Otherwise, a judge as decision-maker must examine all the available evidence but must only give it the weight he or she feel it deserves based upon its relevance and credibility. In this particular case, new evidence was presented to the judge as late as 2001. The judge in the case either found that the new evidence was not relevant, not credible, or insufficient to allow the court to reach a different decision than it did in the first case.

Yes because the new evidence was not consistent with their death wish for terry. Do you consider this the attitude of a responsible judiciary?

 

[Bonnie]

Where to start? First, the Schindlers can always bring move a court to reconsider a decision based upon new evidence, and they have done so. The courts have been uniformly unmoved by this new evidence. In short, they either didn't think the evidence was relevant or dismissed its credibility.

Second, a federal court is constrained to hear only cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the U.S. Congress. That is the extent of the jurisdiction of U.S. courts under the Constitution, and Congress can only expand their jurisdiction to this extent. Congress does not have Constitutional authority to pass laws dealing with probate matters in the like. This is a general police power type of law that only states may pass. The Constitution does provide the power to ensure that persons are not deprived of life, liberty or property by the government without due process of the law. That is the only kind of case that a federal court could hear in this matter, regardless of what Congress might have hoped they do. In order to determine whether a person has received due process, the court looks to determine whether they (in this case, either Terri or the Schindlers) have had a full and fair opportunity to present their case before an impartial decision-maker. It is clear from the record of litigation that they have, and the federal courts have found precisely this. A federal court cannot make a factual determination on what Terri's wishes actually are. That is not the type of case the Constitution allows, and it has nonetheless already been decided in the state courts of Florida.

I just want to be clear on this point..What you are esentially saying is the judges themsleves decide what information gets in and what doesn't based on their personal view of the merits of each piece of information? So a judge looked at the nurses afidavits and decided their testimony had no merit or believablity to the case and shed no light as to the character and motivations of Michael, and so forth?