http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...401/ap_on_go_co/schiavo_politics_4

Some quotes from the article:

"The actions on the part of the Florida court and the U.S. Supreme Court are unconscionable," Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., said Thursday"

"This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay added... "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," said the Texan."

" Asked later at a news conference about possible impeachment proceedings against judges in the case, DeLay said, "There's plenty of time to look into that."

DeLay complained of "an arrogant and out of control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president."

There is a sane Republican commenting on this though:

" Republican Sen. John McCain rejected DeLay's characterization of federal judges on Friday. "I don't agree with it," he said on CBS' "The Early Show."

***

This makes me so mad on so many levels. Hypocrisy at its worst.

1. They talk about a "culture of life" and the value of life, and yet we still have the death penalty in our country. Bush and Delay fought so hard to save this woman's life, and yet their state of Texas carries out more executions than any other.

2. They are supposed to be the party of less government. Conservatives are supposed to be against government interference, which is the opposite of what happened here.

3. They bitch and whine about "liberal judicial activism" when they don't get decisions in the court they wanted. They scream of injustice, when it was the courts themselves, the justice system itself that soundly rejected appeal after appeal. They should accept this as part of the system, its why we have a court system in our country so that the legislative branch can't dominate and shape the laws as they see fit. Its a balance that is written in the constitution.

4. Tom Delay needs to be very careful what he says. Answer to their behavior? Is he threatening judges? These aren't liberal hippie judges down in Florida, just think back to the 2000 elections. Impeachment? I highly doubt that is legal in this situation. I don't believe you can impeach a judge because you disagree with his/her judicial ruling. What they are talking about is worse than the "liberal judicial tyrants", this is trying to forcefully shape the judicial system outside of their congressional limits.

5. Why is Tom Delay making such a fuss about this now? I find it very suspicious that he has jumped onto the Schiavo case during a time when he is facing increasing ethics questions.

Ultimately, this makes me so mad because this is a personal matter which the government (outside of the courts) had no right to intervene. The parents had the right to appeal the decisions, and it went through the courts. This was in the hands of the court system, and because Congress disagrees with the decision... well too bad! The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. They rejected the case, and that is it.

If this goes further, if Congress or the Republicans dare to take action against these judges, I will be infuriated.

It's a whole different brand of conservative to which I, or any self respecting conservative, do not subscribe.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 1): It's a whole different brand of conservative to which I, or any self respecting conservative, do not subscribe.

Indeed. That's TWO of us.

hell, three of us. I have lost so much respect for the right wing of this country through this affair. The irony is that after Jeb Bush & Co. made asses of themselves trying to "adopt" Terri as a ward of the state, the demonstrators outside the hospice start demonizing Jeb and GWB for "not doing enough." So I guess these people expect rule of law and the Constitution should be suspended? Unbelievable. This country scares me.

I'm glad to see some conservatives here who see this as it is. I have both liberal and conservative views, but overall I'm a liberal, and I've lost respect for just about everybody in DC and State Government  . Certainly many conservatives have switched their perpective to suit their convenience on this one, but liberals have done the same thing on past issues.

I'm glad to hear what John McCain said. I have always liked him, and would even consider voting for a reasonable man such as this .

It's probably an over-played position, but whatever happended to working together to just get things done?

Logan

And FINALLY, the right-wing nuts make the mistake that might enable those who voted for them to see right through them. Remember, it's your PRESIDENT and the MAJORITY leader you're talking about - not some random extremist from far, far out there in the Great Plains.

I guess that's what you get when you let religion interfere too much with the state.

They are damn right about judges though. A judge can rule anything he/she wants, even something completely out of mind, ignore all evidence and there is no way to stop this.

Quoting Danny (Reply 6): and there is no way to stop this

I thought that's why there's an appeals process?

Quoting Logan22L (Reply 4): It's probably an over-played position, but whatever happended to working together to just get things done?

The fact that Jesse Jackson sat down w/Jeb and seemed to have a conversation, blew me away. Hey, maybe something GOOD can come out of this sad mess. Two different points of view, talking about ways of doing something together.

Hell, it's like the OLD Republican Party was, when I cast my first vote, back in 1980. I think the rancor and animosity of the last two elections just have polarized us all, a little too much.

Quoting Danny (Reply 6): A judge can rule anything he/she wants, even something completely out of mind, ignore all evidence and there is no way to stop this.

I heard there are those little things called "laws" they have to take an occasional look at. Additionally, has anyone counted the courts the Schindlers lost in? There was more than just one judge ruling against Terri Schiavo's physical existance.

They are damn right about judges though. A judge can rule anything he/she wants, even something completely out of mind, ignore all evidence and there is no way to stop this.

What bunk.

A majority of these judges were all conservatives who were applying the law rigidly, just like Republicans like it.

Your reaction is just indicative of how easy it is for despots like Delay to sway the minds of the ignorant.

Quoting Danny (Reply 6): A judge can rule anything he/she wants, even something completely out of mind, ignore all evidence and there is no way to stop this.

I seem to recall these things called "appeals courts" existing at both the state and federal levels?

Quoting AC320 (Reply 7): I thought that's why there's an appeals process?

Really? So why all courts in Chiavo case refused to look into the matter of the case. There was NO second consideration of the case. Only rullings "we will not look into that".

Yes, there are ways to stop that. It's called the appellate court, and it actually has quite a good record of preventing or correcting abuses in the judicial branch of government. The ones who are currently most often "out of mind" are predominantly in the legislative branch, e.g., DeLay, Frist, and the rest of those who propagated Congress's unjustifiable intrusion into the Schiavo case.

Quoting Danny (Reply 12): So why all courts in Chiavo case refused to look into the matter of the case.

Probably because they saw no significant grounds to reexamine the case.

Quoting Danny (Reply 12): Only rullings "we will not look into that".

OK, point taken. However, the judges stated with those rulings that the first ruling was legitimate.

Danny:
Were you hoping Terry Shiavo would come back to life and say; "Those liberal Democrats tried to kill me!"?

Quoting TriStarEnvy (Reply 8): Hell, it's like the OLD Republican Party was, when I cast my first vote, back in 1980. I think the rancor and animosity of the last two elections just have polarized us all, a little too much.

You played a part in getting that guy elected?
Shame on you!     

Really? So why all courts in Chiavo case refused to look into the matter of the case. There was NO second consideration of the case. Only rullings "we will not look into that".

They did.

After a decision is made by a lower court, it can then be appealed to a higher court (usually a Court of Appeals). This was done repeatedly. If all legal standards of review were met, a higher court will generally not review the case again, just for the hell of it.

There is a process here. You can't just keep appealing ad hoc, ad nauseum, and ad infinitum if you don't like the ruling you've received by the Court.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 17): After a decision is made by a lower court, it can then be appealed to a higher court (usually a Court of Appeals). This was done repeatedly. If all legal standards of review were met, a higher court will generally not review the case again

That is the whole point. Unlike is other democratic countries the US appeal is a fiction since appeal court does not reconsider a case.

I guess they only NOT reconsider it when they judge the first ruling legitimate?

How can the judge it without looking into the case???

That is the whole point. Unlike is other democratic countries the US appeal is a fiction since appeal court does not reconsider a case.

Rubbish.

Where do you conjur up this junk from? The butthole of Tom DeLay?

An appeals court reviews the case, its facts, the legal analysis used by the lower courts, and then applies the law as it deems fit.

Why else do you think that many appeals courts, including the Supreme Court, reverse decisions made by lower courts?

Yeaaaah, they carefully reconsidered Chiavo case within hour and a half.

Quoting Danny (Reply 22): Yeaaaah, they carefully reconsidered Chiavo case within hour and a half

As far as I understand, court of appeals do not reconsider the entire case, but only arguments that there were errors in a trialÂ’s procedure or the judge's interpretation/application of the law. Therefore we can infer that the parents' attorneys were not able to convince the judges via their briefs that there were such problems in the case, and so the court refused to hear them.

Quoting Danny (Reply 22): Yeaaaah, they carefully reconsidered Chiavo case within hour and a half.

After which appeals attempt by the Schindlers? Appeal #5? If the facts of the matter didn't change between Appeal #1, which the Court heard and found no problems with the trial court decision, and Appeal #5,234,981 then gee, maybe the Court can reconsider the case in an hour in a half as they already heard it.

"It's a whole different brand of conservative to which I, or any self respecting conservative, do not subscribe."

That makes 4 of us, as I have recently become really annoyed with the intolerant hypocritical evangelic Christians. Regardless I'm still republican, because the majority of my beliefs lie with this party.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 16): You played a part in getting that guy elected?

Yes.

But, I'm proud to say that even though I consider myself fairly middle of the road conservative, I would happily sit down with the "most out there" liberal and listen to what they had to say, without bias, and consider their point of view. Much unlike many members of the current version of the GOP. I may not agree with the other side of an issue, but I will take another opinion into play, provided the other side isn't screaming and yelling at me, and assuming that, because I'm a Republican, I'm some sort of Fascist/Right-Wing/Pro-Life/Anti-Common Man snob. And, YES, I am rather embarrassed at what my party is turning into. And the last time I felt this way, Bush 41 was in the White House.

Back on thread, I was somewhat amused to notice as I surfed thru my local (Tampa FL.) and national news, this morning, I didn't hear the word "Schaivo", at all. R.I.P Terri.

TriStarEnvy, if I didn't already have you on "that list", you'd be going there. Nice to see that there are in fact people who don't let party politics get in the way of their support for democracy.

TriStarEnvy:
I know your not from the crazy wing of the GOP. I was just giving you $h!t for voting for Reagan. 



R.I.P. Terry.
It's too bad that her illness became to controversial with politicians trying to gain some milage out of her sickness.
Tom Delay and Prick Santorums rants certainly assures them of getting tons of money from right-wing extremist groups.
Santorum is up for re-election next year and is the most vulnerable Senator. He needs to sqeeze as much money possible from every right-wing organization in order to have money to compete.

"The actions on the part of the Florida court and the U.S. Supreme Court are unconscionable," Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., said Thursday"

The same Supreme Court that put his pal George W. in office is now unconscionable?

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter): 2. They are supposed to be the party of less government. Conservatives are supposed to be against government interference, which is the opposite of what happened here.

I have to hand it to The Daily Show for getting it right on this one: conservatives used to be all about less interference from the federal government, but that was when they didn't control the federal government. Now that they do, well....

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter): 3. They bitch and whine about "liberal judicial activism" when they don't get decisions in the court they wanted. They scream of injustice, when it was the courts themselves, the justice system itself that soundly rejected appeal after appeal. They should accept this as part of the system, its why we have a court system in our country so that the legislative branch can't dominate and shape the laws as they see fit. Its a balance that is written in the constitution.

As far as I know, elected officials take oaths to uphold the Constitution. Since this is very subjective, the courts are there to make sure that they actually stick within the Constitution's guidelines. Not one, but many courts have repeatedly said that Congress, despite its good intentions, was overstepping its bounds. The courts were doing their job. The Republicans like to think that their ideals for a better country are more important than the Constitution, which has worked amazingly well for 225+ years now, and which they swore to protect. Sorry guys, it doesn't work that way.

DeLay complained of "an arrogant and out of control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president."

You want to talk about arrogant, Tom? Ok, we can do that. How about the way that you threaten judges when they don't make decisions that you like? How about you putting yourself on a higher moral plane than everyone else? THAT'S arrogant. The judges are just doing their jobs. Show a little respect.

So take a bow, Republicans. You have officially earned the first ever collective

award.

Now I know that not all Republicans are like this. I'm a proud liberal, but I'm not afraid to say that there are some places where the other side is right and the Democrats are wrong (I hesitate to use the word Republicans because there are so many of them who have gone bad). In my mind, there are three basic kinds of politicans in Congress now: those who want the government in the wallet but not the bedroom, those who want the government in neither, and those who want the government out of the wallet but in the bedroom. I tend to associate myself with the first group (Democrats), but I can understand where the second group (whom I'll call True Republicans) is coming from, and if our next president were to be a McCain or Giuliani, I'd be perfectly fine with that. It's the third group (whom I'll call Religious Republicans) who I detest, and I think that it is a travesty that they have been allowed to take over the government in this way. Hopefully the country will see what they are doing, and vote them out in the next election. The government of the United States has never been, and should never be, based on the principles that morality determines what the government can and cannot do.

To MaverickM11, TriStarEnvy and NYCFlyer (and I know many more on a.net who fall into the same category), I feel for you. I really do. The fall that the Republican party has taken is just sickening. I'm not even a Republican and it sickens me.

There's lots more I could say, but most of it's already been said in the thread, so I'll just end the rant now to avoid being redundant. Suffice to say, I'm pissed.

-Mir

Mir:
Excellent post!  
I agree with you 99%.
However I'd take TriStarEnvy off that list. He is a smart independant minded conservative that express disagreement with the GOP hiearchy.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 30): However I'd take TriStarEnvy off that list. He is a smart independant minded conservative that express disagreement with the GOP hiearchy.

That's exactly the kind of person who I intended to be on the list. Most of the Republicans on here are intelligent people who just have different points of view. I can, and do, respect that, and I feel sorry for them that their party is screwing them over this way.

Or maybe I didn't understand your post.   

-Mir

Quoting Danny (Reply 12): Quoting AC320 (Reply 7): I thought that's why there's an appeals process? Really? So why all courts in Chiavo case refused to look into the matter of the case. There was NO second consideration of the case. Only rullings "we will not look into that".

Because Michael had that whole sanctity of marriage thing going for him! Remember, gay marraige would damage that, so you have to overrule it here to save a carrot!   

No argument w/most of that post Mir.

I am sad for what my party has suddenly seemed to become.

Thanks for the shout-out, 'Fly, I owe ya a beer.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 27): Nice to see that there are in fact people who don't let party politics get in the way of their support for democracy.

Thanks, Achim. And you already were on my list!

Well, come 2008, all this GOP divisiveness over Terry Schiavo will end.

Some new paleolithic divisive social issue will be trotted out by the GOP in light of the Schiavo case, and they'll all rally around the caveman who's up for election.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 35): Some new paleolithic divisive social issue will be trotted out by the GOP in light of the Schiavo case, and they'll all rally around the caveman who's up for election.

...and no doubt continued Democratic party election ineptitude will lead to another Republican victory.   

Tom at MSY

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter): They talk about a "culture of life" and the value of life, and yet we still have the death penalty in our country. Bush and Delay fought so hard to save this woman's life, and yet their state of Texas carries out more executions than any other. 2. They are supposed to be the party of less government. Conservatives are supposed to be against government interference, which is the opposite of what happened here. 3. They bitch and whine about "liberal judicial activism" when they don't get decisions in the court they wanted. They scream of injustice, when it was the courts themselves, the justice system itself that soundly rejected appeal after appeal. They should accept this as part of the system, its why we have a court system in our country so that the legislative branch can't dominate and shape the laws as they see fit. Its a balance that is written in the constitution. 4. Tom Delay needs to be very careful what he says. Answer to their behavior? Is he threatening judges? These aren't liberal hippie judges down in Florida, just think back to the 2000 elections. Impeachment? I highly doubt that is legal in this situation. I don't believe you can impeach a judge because you disagree with his/her judicial ruling. What they are talking about is worse than the "liberal judicial tyrants", this is trying to forcefully shape the judicial system outside of their congressional limits. 5. Why is Tom Delay making such a fuss about this now? I find it very suspicious that he has jumped onto the Schiavo case during a time when he is facing increasing ethics questions.

1. You don't see the difference between taking the life of someone who has done no harm and someone who has harmed someone?

2. They only stepped in after activist judges began legislating. It's the governments job to protect and defend the citizens of this nation.

3. See #2. And by the way... Her "wishes" were all hearsay from a questionable husband.

4. He can say what he want's. What.. Are you goign to go and take away his birthday???

5. Lame.

6. Had they not raised a stink, people would be bitching about that. It's a lose-lose situation.

[Edited 2005-04-02 01:56:43]

In fairness, it's not just Republicans that are "out of line", as it were, in this instance. Jesse Jackson and Ralph Nadar have chimed in on behalf of "doing something" about this.

But there's no doubt the loudest voices, like this bastard DeLay, are Republican. Yet some of the loudest against "doing something", as in John Danforth, are Republican as well.

Once I'm over driving fatigue, I want to put down my thoughts on here on this issue, since I was either a. banned, or b. out of town on vacation, when this happened.

But I don't think you can just lump it in as "Republicans", because an overwelming majority of Americans are against Congressional/Presidential intervention on such cases.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 37): 2. They only stepped in after activist judges began legislating. It's the governments job to protect and defend the citizens of this nation.

When the judges make decisions that you like, it's proper interpretation of the law. When they make decisions that you don't like, they're activists. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. It is the government's job to protect and defend the citizens, yes, but remember that the courts are a branch of the government too. In this case, the courts were protecting the citizens from a Congress and state government that was stepping outside of its bounds and ignoring the principles of the Constitution that it was supposed to uphold. Totally legit.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 37): 3. See #2. And by the way... Her "wishes" were all hearsay from a questionable husband.

Any other evidence to suggest that she wouldn't want to die, besides hearsay from her parents? There isn't any. As for him being "questionable," yes he had another common law marriage, but there is no doubt in my mind that he devoted serious time and effort to try and help Terri make a recovery. Eventually, one must move on. And to be quite frank, I'm no more impressed by Terri's parents.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 37): 4. He can say what he want's. What.. Are you goign to go and take away his birthday???

Of course he can say what he wants. But if I were his advisor, I'd tell him to shut the hell up, because the more that he talks, the more stupid and arrogant and disgusting he sounds. Impeaching judges? For what? Apparently disagreement is grounds for impeachment now.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 37): 6. Had they not raised a stink, people would be bitching about that. It's a lose-lose situation.

People will always bitch about something, no matter what Congress does. On this point I will agree with you. But this does not mean that Congress should do something that it is not supposed to do, just because the religious right is demanding it. Both decisions are going to be unpopular with someone, but you can still make the right decision, which is in this case to STAY THE HELL OUT OF PEOPLE'S PERSONAL MATTERS.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 38): But I don't think you can just lump it in as "Republicans", because an overwelming majority of Americans are against Congressional/Presidential intervention on such cases.

This is absolutely true. And I generally don't associate this kind of thing with the Republican party (though unfortunately this seems to be becoming more prevalent in Bush's second term - I don't think that it will end here). I know that there are plenty of true Republicans out there who are disgusted by this whole thing. Which is why I think we should have two different terms. One for the people who are intelligent and respect the laws of the country, and another for the idiots who think that they can shove their dirty hands into whatever they please whenever it suits them. Any ideas for names? I'm open to suggestions.

-Mir

Quoting Mir (Reply 39): Any other evidence to suggest that she wouldn't want to die, besides hearsay from her parents? There isn't any. As for him being "questionable," yes he had another common law marriage, but there is no doubt in my mind that he devoted serious time and effort to try and help Terri make a recovery. Eventually, one must move on. And to be quite frank, I'm no more impressed by Terri's parents.

So let me get this straight. Hearsay that a person wants to die should be taken over hearsay that they want to live? I hope you aren't on a table with a bleeding artery and someone yells out "He want's to die" and they run with it.

Last time I checked, if someone does not express their desires then those who are charged with responsibility are to assume life. Not only is it a legal question, it's a moral question.

Kind of like a socialogical question...There are 20 people on a boat, only 10 can survive in a lifeboat. One man set of a bomb to sink the boat and freely admits his actions. Who stays, and who goes?

The morally correct answer is that everyone stays, except for the guy that set off the bomb. He is to be drowned. Meaning we don't have the right to be judge and jury on someone who has done no harm, but response to someone who has done harm should be swift and just.

Quoting Danny (Reply 12): Only rullings "we will not look into that".

There was nothing further to look into...all legal efforts had already been exhausted, and any new justiciable information was not available to change the past rulings. What new developments would they have to go on?

Quoting Mir (Reply 29): The same Supreme Court that put his pal George W. in office is now unconscionable?

I know, funny how soon these Republicans forget...especially since this Supreme Court is considered by every bipartisan expert in politics to be conservative.

Quoting Mir (Reply 29): I have to hand it to The Daily Show for getting it right on this one: conservatives used to be all about less interference from the federal government, but that was when they didn't control the federal government. Now that they do, well....

Conservatives don't know what to think anymore. They think whatever they're told by Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to think, and if they don't think it, they're not patriotic. A couple years ago, big government was bad. Now its good. And all the Bushies think so too, regardless of their past "liberal, commie, big government" dribble.

So two days from now Bush could come out and say "Anal sex isn't as immoral as we once thought" and they'd be the first ones to bend over and spread.

When Tom DeLay took such a motivated stand in the spotlight on this issue, I saw about 500 of these:   ...talk about a hypocritical gesture to obviously deflect scrutiny from ongoing investigations into his unethical business relationships and shady corporate fundraising. Pretty despicable.

Here's the bottom line with the Sciavo case: the government doesn't have a right...or any legal grounds..to intervene in the life and death decisions of an individual unless there was evidence of neglect, which there was not...whether you like Michael Schiavo or not.

Jeb backed away from it slowly. So did Dubya. The Supreme Court made their decision and shut their mouths. So did every other legal entity in this land.

The one thing that uber-religious conservative crazies will never understand is that you CANNOT subvert the law...the legal fiber which binds this country...for a book called "the Bible", even though Bush really pushes the envelope trying it. No wonder they are dying for conservative judges, as opposed to judges who will administer the law impartially and without any religious ties.

So there ya have it. Republicans bludgeon themselves by taking the "Oh God, we have to protect life!" stand and walk right into thr biggest $hit sandwich since their LIES about Iraq's WMD. And what is sad is that this sort of thing happens every day, thousands of times, and only because Jeb Bush's political future was threatened did the President and Congress decide to act.

And to all of you Republicans on this forum who are backing away from the issue too: hey, don't complain...YOU reelected Bush! YOU cast YOUR vote and put these liars and hypocrites back in office! You can't run and hide from that now that the going is a little bit tough!

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 40): So let me get this straight. Hearsay that a person wants to die should be taken over hearsay that they want to live?

When it comes from their legal guardian, yes. And it's not really just hearsay, it's testimony from him that Terri told him that she would not want to be kept alive in that state. That's his evidence. The parents had nothing that held up in any of the courts that they put the case to.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 40): I hope you aren't on a table with a bleeding artery and someone yells out "He want's to die" and they run with it.

I have confidence that whoever my legal guardian is will not be so utterly stupid. And in any case, I plan on having a living will so that it's clear what is to happen.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 40): Last time I checked, if someone does not express their desires then those who are charged with responsibility are to assume life

Sure, but Terri DID express her desires to her husband, according to his testimony. Several (not one, but several) judges found that to be legal grounds for his case.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 40): Not only is it a legal question, it's a moral question.

Only the legal question counts in this country. Morality, though nice to think about, is no basis for goverment due to its subjectivity, at least in a civilized country.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 40): The morally correct answer is that everyone stays, except for the guy that set off the bomb. He is to be drowned.

I would think that the morally correct answer would be that the man who set the bomb stayed (or was forced to stay), and then the other 19 people would decide amongst themselves who should stay and who should go. To have nobody get off the boat would be a waste of 10 lives, and I find it odd that someone who is so in favor of letting people live as you are would advocate wasting 10 lives like that. If nobody were able to agree, then there would be some sort of struggle to determine who got to go on the lifeboat. This is the only rational thing to do. Some would end up dying, and others would end up living, which is the way that things go in this world.

-Mir

While I do have a lot of sympathy for Terry's family and can't imagine what they are going through right now, I can't help but wonder how long it will take to undo all the damage done here. While I think the decision by the court was the wrong one, I also think the actions of the government, especially the federal government, were also wrong. I wonder what it will take to push back this intrusion into our lives? I appreciate the president's motives, but this was a misuse of his power and I am hoping someone will call him out on it. My personal values aside, this is not an area for government intervention. Perhaps the court should have thrown the initial case out as well. Other than indirect testimony, does anyone know what evidence was available to determine what Terry wanted? Does anyone know if the parents and husband ever explored the use of binding mediation to resolve this?

It is a sad, sad, affair for all involved.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 40): Last time I checked, if someone does not express their desires then those who are charged with responsibility are to assume life. Not only is it a legal question, it's a moral question.

Where are you getting this from? Who said you're supposed to assume life? Your local pastor?

And actually, your version of this is a rhetorical question, not a moral or legal question. Rhetoric: the absence of logical thought being replaced with an emotional ploy.

As Mir so eloquently put it, even though the ultra-christian conservative crazies would love to turn our government into a christian theocracy, a group of people cannot define what "morality" is or is not...thus, the legal system is in place to be an impartial mediator and to protect the public from politicians or groups who want to subvert the Constitution and impose their religious or moral views on others.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 40): The morally correct answer is that everyone stays, except for the guy that set off the bomb. He is to be drowned. Meaning we don't have the right to be judge and jury on someone who has done no harm, but response to someone who has done harm should be swift and just.

Ok, and you basically just shot yourself in the foot with that argument. Maybe I misunderstood you, but you just said that we do not have the right to be judge and jury on someone who has done no harm. Thinking along that vein, then Republicans should have recognized that they do not have the right (or legal leg to stand on) to be the judge and jury in the Sciavo case.

Let me quote myself, for Boeing7E7's benefit, since he can't see past the all the conservative christian crap water that he's been told to believe:

Quoting ATLhomeCMH (Reply 41): Here's the bottom line with the Sciavo case: the government doesn't have a right...or any legal grounds..to intervene in the life and death decisions of an individual unless there was evidence of neglect, which there was not...whether you like Michael Schiavo or not.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 40): So let me get this straight. Hearsay that a person wants to die should be taken over hearsay that they want to live?

In this case, yes. Since the husband has the legal voice here, yes.

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter): Hypocrisy at its worst.

Completely agree. Good arguments. There are so many things like the death penalty and Iraq that have already been pointed out here when it comes to the hypocrisy of this so-called "pro-life" geovernment, but since they allow people to say things such as this:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 37): 1. You don't see the difference between taking the life of someone who has done no harm and someone who has harmed someone?

then how about a different example. I mentioned it in another thread, but that seems to have petered out completely. So:

Bush may have flown to Washington to get involved in the Schiavo case, but as governor of Texas, he signed into law the "Texas Futile Care Law" which orders life support to be withdrawn from people against their families' wishes when they CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR IT. Just now while all this Terry Schaivo grandstanding was going on, Bush's law allowed the feeding tube to be removed from a 6-month-old Texas baby against the parents' wishes, because the insurance would not pay for it any longer.

What do you say to that Boeing7E7. I'd like a serious answer.

The funny thing is I really how I don't know how I feel about the case of Terry Schaivo per se...yet I'm still enraged about the fact that the GOP politicians took such a sanctimonious stand on this in order to make headlines as "good guys" for the religious right voting base; but it is all just a smokecreen for the fact that behind the scenes Republican policies are actually wreaking havoc on the access poor people have to medical help!

Well today Bill Frist, leader of the Republicans in the Senate said that the courts in the Schiavo case acted appropriately and fairly.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...050405/us_nm/congress_judges_dc_11

The Senate republicans are trying to separate themselves from the nutjobs of Tom Delay and Co., and rightfully so.

Quoting N229NW (Reply 46): Bush may have flown to Washington to get involved in the Schiavo case, but as governor of Texas, he signed into law the "Texas Futile Care Law" which orders life support to be withdrawn from people against their families' wishes when they CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR IT. Just now while all this Terry Schaivo grandstanding was going on, Bush's law allowed the feeding tube to be removed from a 6-month-old Texas baby against the parents' wishes, because the insurance would not pay for it any longer.

Help me out here, homes, I can't find that purported law in the Texas Codes and Statutes. Favor us with a citation to the law, if you will.

I'll grant that, while I am a lawyer, I don't know all the laws. But this one sounds like a real dilly. A real, artificial, conjured up dilly. So dish it. Or delete it.

Thanks in advance.

Only law *I* find remotely on-topic is this:

TEXAS STATUTES AND CODES ANNOTATED BY LEXISNEXIS(R)

*** THIS DOCUMENT IS CURRENT THROUGH ALL 2003 LEGISLATION ***
*** NO LEGISLATION ENACTED IN 2004 ***
*** March 2005 Annotation Service ***

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
TITLE 8. DEATH AND DISPOSITION OF THE BODY
SUBTITLE A. DEATH
CHAPTER 671. DETERMINATION OF DEATH AND AUTOPSY REPORTS
SUBCHAPTER A. DETERMINATION OF DEATH


GO TO TEXAS CODE ARCHIVE DIRECTORY

Tex. Health & Safety Code § 671.001 (2004)

§ 671.001. Standard Used in Determining Death


(a) A person is dead when, according to ordinary standards of medical practice, there is irreversible cessation of the person's spontaneous respiratory and circulatory functions.

(b) If artificial means of support preclude a determination that a person's spontaneous respiratory and circulatory functions have ceased, the person is dead when, in the announced opinion of a physician, according to ordinary standards of medical practice, there is irreversible cessation of all spontaneous brain function. Death occurs when the relevant functions cease.

(c) Death must be pronounced before artificial means of supporting a person's respiratory and circulatory functions are terminated.

(d) A registered nurse or physician assistant may determine and pronounce a person dead in situations other than those described by Subsection (b) if permitted by written policies of a licensed health care facility, institution, or entity providing services to that person. Those policies must include physician assistants who are credentialed or otherwise permitted to practice at the facility, institution, or entity. If the facility, institution, or entity has an organized nursing staff and an organized medical staff or medical consultant, the nursing staff and medical staff or consultant shall jointly develop and approve those policies. The board shall adopt rules to govern policies for facilities, institutions, or entities that do not have organized nursing staffs and organized medical staffs or medical consultants.


Return to Practitioner's Toolbox History:


Stats. 1995 74th Leg. Sess. Ch. 965.