For the moron's who think Terry Schaivo can't recover

[musicman]

The federal version of florida's "Terri's Law" is, in essence a bill of attainder, which is unconstitutional..

I might be wrong on this, Bully, but it seems to me I heard the legal expert from Wall Street Weekly saying that it only acheives the status of "bill of attainder" if it involves the meting out of punishment for a crime. Therefore, no constitutionality problems here. Can you shed any further light on the matter?

 

[Avatar4321]

I might be wrong on this, Bully, but it seems to me I heard the legal expert from Wall Street Weekly saying that it only acheives the status of "bill of attainder" if it involves the meting out of punishment for a crime. Therefore, no constitutionality problems here. Can you shed any further light on the matter?

Thats what I was thinking as well. course we havent gone into bill of attainders indepth.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

so when is the federal investigation of the florida state courts going to happen?

 

[musicman]

Thats what I was thinking as well. course we havent gone into bill of attainders indepth.

There are so many intricacies on such an emotion-charged issue. I've really tried to be careful; I don't know how successful I've been.

 

[musicman]

so when is the federal investigation of the florida state courts going to happen?

LOL - I'm not quite sure how to react, SmarterThanYou. If you're being facetious, I'd hate to bite like the biggest, dumbest fish in the sea!

 

[Avatar4321]

There are so many intricacies on such an emotion-charged issue. I've really tried to be careful; I don't know how successful I've been.

The problem with this case is its hard to tell what the facts are. Which is why this is such a travesty. If the courts were so convinced that Terri needed to die the least they could have done is look over all the facts.

Its an interesting situation. Im surprised there was no jury. Jury's are ususally the ones that find fact. I haven't heart squat about any juries finding any facts in this case. and i think its odd that her parents would have waved the jury. it would be easier to argue to a jury on this matter than to a judge.

There is just alot here that should be looked at and I don't think it really has. I mean what the heck is the point of appealing of the dang judges dont even spend an hour going over the case. And I can't figure out why people are so eager for her to die or how some are so happy and enthusiastic for it.

 

[musicman]

LOL - I'm not quite sure how to react, SmarterThanYou. If you're being facetious, I'd hate to bite like the biggest, dumbest fish in the sea!

I did, though - damnit - didn't I?

What an e-tard!

 

[musicman]

The problem with this case is its hard to tell what the facts are. Which is why this is such a travesty. If the courts were so convinced that Terri needed to die the least they could have done is look over all the facts.

Its an interesting situation. Im surprised there was no jury. Jury's are ususally the ones that find fact. I haven't heart squat about any juries finding any facts in this case. and i think its odd that her parents would have waved the jury. it would be easier to argue to a jury on this matter than to a judge.

There is just alot here that should be looked at and I don't think it really has. I mean what the heck is the point of appealing of the dang judges dont even spend an hour going over the case. And I can't figure out why people are so eager for her to die or how some are so happy and enthusiastic for it.

A heart-breaking, brain-twisting mess.

 

[Gem]

No, it wasn't a cynical ploy
Michael Barone (archive)


March 27, 2005 | Print | Send


A lot of sophisticated people are clucking at the actions of Congress and George W. Bush that attempted to save the life of Terri Schiavo. This was pandering to the religious right, we are told, a cynical partisan ploy by Republicans, an intervention by an activist, even ayatollah-like, federal government into a state court case and a family dispute. I do not put myself forward as an expert on this case, nor am I certain that Congress and Bush made the right decision, or that the courts, state and federal, made the wrong one. But I do think much of the criticism and condescension is misguided. And I think that the response of elected officials reflects one of the great strengths in our country: a confident belief in moral principles that stands in vivid contrast with what we see in much of Europe and in the supposedly sophisticated precincts of this country.

Start with the federalism issue. During Reconstruction, Congress passed laws authorizing the federal government to protect the civil rights of individuals left unprotected or harmed by state action. Those laws have been invoked in cases where the rights of black Americans were violated and the violators went unpunished. Invoked, I would say, not often enough. The law Congress passed and Bush signed was an attempt to protect the civil rights of one individual in light of substantial evidence that those rights were not being protected by the state. You may not regard the evidence as persuasive, though I think it's pretty strong: At crucial stages Terri Schiavo had no independent advocate; some medical tests that many neurologists regard as routine in such cases were not administered. Federal interventions to uphold civil rights should probably be rare. But they're not unprecedented in this country.

A cynical partisan ploy by Republicans? Not really. It is possible that Democrats, if in control, might not have summoned a special session. But this was not a purely partisan issue. Democrats did vote for the bill and made its passage possible. Proceedings in the Senate could have been stopped by a single objection to a unanimous-consent request. No senator objected. Minority Leader Harry Reid cooperated fully with Republicans. In the House, enough Democrats returned from recess to provide the necessary quorum, and 46 Democrats voted for the bill, while 53 voted against.

Were all these Democrats and Republicans acting cynically? I don't think so. Take Sen. Tom Harkin, a liberal Democrat who worked for the measure. Harkin's interest arose from his long concern for the disabled -- he was a chief sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act -- and his desire to protect the rights of the incapacitated. Were his views informed by his Roman Catholic faith? I don't know, but what if they were? Legislators are under no obligation to have moral principles entirely divorced from religious beliefs. I can't answer for every member who voted for the bill or against it. But the quality of the debate suggests to me that large majorities on both sides were acting out of reasoned moral conviction more than political calculation.

Reasoned moral conviction: That is one of our national strengths. George Weigel, in his new book, "The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics Without God," argues that without strong religious beliefs, tolerance degenerates into indifference, mere "skepticism and relativism," which fail to provide a reason that people should be tolerant and civil. I would broaden Weigel's argument by saying, "without strong religious or moral beliefs," but his larger point is well taken. Look at Christopher Caldwell's recent accounts in the Weekly Standard of how multiculturalist tolerance in the Netherlands and Sweden has made them helpless against separate subsidized communities of Muslims who refuse to practice tolerance themselves and seek to destroy the tolerant society around them. A society that believes only in skepticism ultimately has no means of self-defense. On the Schiavo issue, most members of Congress, on both sides, were not indifferent but acted on moral convictions in a difficult situation. They were trying to do what they believed was right. They deserve respect, not contempt.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/mb20050327.shtml

 

[dilloduck]

No, it wasn't a cynical ploy
Michael Barone (archive)


March 27, 2005 | Print | Send


A lot of sophisticated people are clucking at the actions of Congress and George W. Bush that attempted to save the life of Terri Schiavo. This was pandering to the religious right, we are told, a cynical partisan ploy by Republicans, an intervention by an activist, even ayatollah-like, federal government into a state court case and a family dispute. I do not put myself forward as an expert on this case, nor am I certain that Congress and Bush made the right decision, or that the courts, state and federal, made the wrong one. But I do think much of the criticism and condescension is misguided. And I think that the response of elected officials reflects one of the great strengths in our country: a confident belief in moral principles that stands in vivid contrast with what we see in much of Europe and in the supposedly sophisticated precincts of this country.

Start with the federalism issue. During Reconstruction, Congress passed laws authorizing the federal government to protect the civil rights of individuals left unprotected or harmed by state action. Those laws have been invoked in cases where the rights of black Americans were violated and the violators went unpunished. Invoked, I would say, not often enough. The law Congress passed and Bush signed was an attempt to protect the civil rights of one individual in light of substantial evidence that those rights were not being protected by the state. You may not regard the evidence as persuasive, though I think it's pretty strong: At crucial stages Terri Schiavo had no independent advocate; some medical tests that many neurologists regard as routine in such cases were not administered. Federal interventions to uphold civil rights should probably be rare. But they're not unprecedented in this country.

A cynical partisan ploy by Republicans? Not really. It is possible that Democrats, if in control, might not have summoned a special session. But this was not a purely partisan issue. Democrats did vote for the bill and made its passage possible. Proceedings in the Senate could have been stopped by a single objection to a unanimous-consent request. No senator objected. Minority Leader Harry Reid cooperated fully with Republicans. In the House, enough Democrats returned from recess to provide the necessary quorum, and 46 Democrats voted for the bill, while 53 voted against.

Were all these Democrats and Republicans acting cynically? I don't think so. Take Sen. Tom Harkin, a liberal Democrat who worked for the measure. Harkin's interest arose from his long concern for the disabled -- he was a chief sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act -- and his desire to protect the rights of the incapacitated. Were his views informed by his Roman Catholic faith? I don't know, but what if they were? Legislators are under no obligation to have moral principles entirely divorced from religious beliefs. I can't answer for every member who voted for the bill or against it. But the quality of the debate suggests to me that large majorities on both sides were acting out of reasoned moral conviction more than political calculation.

Reasoned moral conviction: That is one of our national strengths. George Weigel, in his new book, "The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics Without God," argues that without strong religious beliefs, tolerance degenerates into indifference, mere "skepticism and relativism," which fail to provide a reason that people should be tolerant and civil. I would broaden Weigel's argument by saying, "without strong religious or moral beliefs," but his larger point is well taken. Look at Christopher Caldwell's recent accounts in the Weekly Standard of how multiculturalist tolerance in the Netherlands and Sweden has made them helpless against separate subsidized communities of Muslims who refuse to practice tolerance themselves and seek to destroy the tolerant society around them. A society that believes only in skepticism ultimately has no means of self-defense. On the Schiavo issue, most members of Congress, on both sides, were not indifferent but acted on moral convictions in a difficult situation. They were trying to do what they believed was right. They deserve respect, not contempt.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/mb20050327.shtml

 

[SmarterThanYou]

LOL - I'm not quite sure how to react, SmarterThanYou. If you're being facetious, I'd hate to bite like the biggest, dumbest fish in the sea!

wha....moi????? :teeth:

 

[no1tovote4]

From what I understood, she's not on morphine, or anything else for that matter...

Did I miss something?

She is on a morphine drip, at least according to ABC news on the radio she is.

 

[dilloduck]

She is on a morphine drip, at least according to ABC news on the radio she is.

Why----the docs not sure if she's uncomfortable or not ??? What hypocrisy !

 

[no1tovote4]

Why----the docs not sure if she's uncomfortable or not ??? What hypocrisy !

That's what my wife said when she heard the report when we were in the truck...

If she really is a vegetable there would be no need for it.

 

[dilloduck]

That's what my wife said when she heard the report when we were in the truck...

If she really is a vegetable there would be no need for it.

The excuse I heard was it was to "ease her breathing"----now just who in the hell all the sudden gives a shit about that??? Bizarre !!!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The excuse I heard was it was to "ease her breathing"----now just who in the hell all the sudden gives a shit about that??? Bizarre !!!

I saw a sign among the protestors which I think sums it up:

This is Sick!

 

[Annie]

I'm with the minority on many aspects of this case, but I think most of us would agree that this is just weird:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/

[...]
Death Is Beautiful?
Possibly the creepiest moment in the Terri Schiavo saga came Saturday afternoon, when George Felos, Michael Schiavo's lawyer, appeared at a press conference without his client. Felos described having visited Mrs. Schiavo, who at that point had gone eight days without food and water. "Frankly when I saw her . . . she looked beautiful," Felos told the assembled reporters. "In all the years I've seen Mrs. Schiavo, I've never seen such a look of peace and beauty upon her."

OK, we understand "peace": She's not suffering, she wouldn't have wanted to die, etc.--of course Felos is going to make that argument. But beauty? Felos is aestheticizing this poor woman's death, after having helped bring it about? That's just weird.

It turns out that Felos's weirdness goes deeper still. In a 2003 article, Florida Baptist Witness editor James Smith looked at Felos's 2002 book, "Litigation as Spiritual Practice." Felos's views on the "right to die" are informed by a "syncretistic" spirituality that "mixes diverse religious traditions--including generous citations from the Bible and references to Jesus Christ--creating a composite of his own spiritual worldview."

Smith quotes at length a story from Felos's book about Estelle Browning, the subject of Felos's first right-to-die case:

As I continued to stay beside Mrs. Browning at her nursing home bed, I felt my mind relax and my weight sink into the ground. I began to feel light-headed as I became more reposed. Although feeling like I could drift into sleep, I also experienced a sense of heightened awareness.

As Mrs. Browning lay motionless before my gaze, I suddenly heard a loud, deep moan and scream and wondered if the nursing home personnel heard it and would respond to the unfortunate resident. In the next moment, as this cry of pain and torment continued, I realized it was Mrs. Browning.

I felt the mid-section of my body open and noticed a strange quality to the light in the room. I sensed her soul in agony. As she screamed I heard her say, in confusion, "Why am I still here . . . Why am I here?" My soul touched hers and in some way I communicated that she was still locked in her body. I promised I would do everything in my power to gain the release her soul cried for. With that the screaming immediately stopped. I felt like I was back in my head again, the room resumed its normal appearance, and Mrs. Browning, as she had throughout this experience, lay silent.

Last week Terri Schiavo's parents claimed that their daughter had tried to say, "I want to live," when a visitor urged her to do so. Given what we know about Mrs. Schiavo's condition, this is implausible--but no more so than Felos's claims of communing with the near-dead.
[...]

 

[krisy]

I think Terri's brother summed it up when he said-"apparently Mr. Felos has some kind of sick obcession with death."

Really.

 

[dilloduck]

I think Terri's brother summed it up when he said-"apparently Mr. Felos has some kind of sick obcession with death."

Really.

he is---maybe because his name is just dying for someone to make a joke about it.

 

[OCA]

She feels hunger or starvation as much as a potato or carrot.

Have you ever starved a carrot?

You know when I first read this I wanted to ban your ass right away for such an uncaring and callous and generally fucked up statement like this. But I held off and had a few discussions and have come to the conclusion that you are a worse piece of shit than I ever aspired to be and that you are a detriment to the board. Eat shit.