posted on March 26, 2005 04:22:32 AM new
Well, Congress is now in a real bonafied mess and I blame the Shiavo's and the far right religious groups for this one. The country has spoken. This is a very good article. The repugs are on the hot seat.
Republican lawmakers and others engaged in the debate say an internal party dispute over the Schiavo case has ruptured, at least temporarily, the uneasy alliance between economic and social conservatives that twice helped President Bush get elected.
posted on March 26, 2005 05:04:04 AM new
You are correct, coincoach...I don't like it one bit. I don't believe ANY man OWNS a woman....we left those days decades ago. And especially not one where mistreatment of his wife has been claimed. And I don't believe that Florida laws should automatically give decision making, care taking over to a husband who 7 years ago was quite clear he want his wife to die.
----------
Liberals have repeatedly used the talking point of how many judges have heard the case of Terri Schiavo. But that is as misleading as most of the rest of what they and the mainstream media have been saying.
When a case goes up to a higher court on appeal, the issue before the appellate court is not whether they agree with the merits of the decision of the lower court. In a criminal case, for example, the issue before the appellate court is not whether the defendant was guilty or innocent, but whether the trial was conducted properly.
In other words, the defendant is not supposed to be tried again at the appellate level. So, no matter how many appellate judges rule one way or the other, that tells you absolutely nothing about the fundamental question of guilt or innocence.
Similar principles apply in a civil case, such as that of Terri Schiavo. ****Liberals can count all the judges they want, but that does not mean that all these judges agreed with the merits of the original court's decision****. It means that they found no basis for saying that the original court's decision was illegal.
What the law just passed by Congress did was authorize a federal court to go back to square one and examine the actual merits of the Terri Schiavo case, not simply review whether the previous judge behaved illegally. Congress authorized the federal courts to retry this case from scratch -- "de novo" as the legislation says in legal terminology.
That is precisely what the federal courts have refused to do. There is no way that federal District Judge James Whittemore could have examined this complex case, with its contending legal arguments and conflicting experts, from scratch in a couple of days, even if he had worked around the clock without eating or sleeping.
Judge Whittemore ignored the clear meaning of the law passed by Congress and rubberstamped the decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.
Nor could the judges on the Court of Appeals have gone through all of this material "de novo" in a couple of days after Judge Whittemore's decision. They have added to the number of judges that liberals can count but they have not followed the law -- which is what really counts.
The federal judges have rushed to judgment -- in a case where there was no rush legally, despite a medical urgency. Terri Schiavo was not dying from anything other than a lack of food and water. These federal judges could have ordered the feeding tube restored while they gave this issue the thorough examination authorized -- and indeed prescribed -- by the recent Congressional legislation.
As dissenting Judge Charles Wilson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals put it, the "entire purpose of the statute" is to let federal courts look at the case "with a fresh pair of eyes." But, by the Circuit Court's decision, "we virtually guarantee" that the merits of the case "will never be litigated in a federal court" because Terri Schiavo will be dead. Never -- regardless of how many judges are counted as talking points.
The liberal line, both in politics and in the media, is that Congress somehow behaved unconstitutionally. All federal courts except the Supreme Court are created by Congress. The Constitution itself gives Congress the authority to define or restrict the jurisdictions of federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
Is the Constitution unconstitutional?
The lessons of this tragic episode are as momentous as they are painful, if only because we should never want to see such a miscarriage of justice again. The issue is not only whether Terri Schiavo should live or die, important as that is.
Another important issue is whether self-government in this country will live or die. Judges who ignore the laws passed by elected representatives are slowly but surely replacing democracy with judicial rule. Meanwhile, the media treat judges as sacrosanct and any criticism of them as almost blasphemy.
All this adds more urgency to the need to put judges on the courts who will follow the written law, not their own notions. We can only hope that the Senate Republicans have the guts to do that.
posted on March 26, 2005 05:13:43 AM new
And again another meaningless boring C&P from our favorite law expert , linduh, from the famous law firm, "Dewey, Cheatem and Howe".
Well, at least you gave credit to the real writer!
linduh, even the repugs in congress are giving up on this....YOU can't possibly care that much...you phony.
Read Cheryl's link yet?
No, you'll never read anything that might present a different view than your own stuck in the mud opinion.
posted on March 26, 2005 05:55:21 AM new
fenix - Not that it makes any difference, but I just read that one of Terri's nurses had filed her complaint against the husband...back in 1996. One who it was previously believed had waited until 2003 to speak about what she witnessed. Now they're checking to see why her complaint was left out.
posted on March 26, 2005 06:07:46 AM new
Was it the nurse that found the needle marks on her arm? That was reported to the police the day it happened and she said (the nurse) wasn't questioned about it at all.
I listed to her sound bite the other nite on the radio.
She won't read my link because it tells the truth. Something that's hard to hear. Even her own republicans are disgusted. But, she doesn't want to hear that.
posted on March 26, 2005 06:20:37 AM new
Libra - Her name was Carla Iyers. And she said that the police did investigate her concerns in 1996. But for some reason she didn't file a formal complaint until 2003. ???
--------------
Cheryl - I expect that crap from crowfarm...that's her normal style. But it surprises me coming from you. How in the heck do you know if I read it or not? You don't. What a juvenile thing to say.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
PUBLIC STATEMENT OF THE SCHINDLER FAMILY IN RESPONSE TO THE STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SCHIAVO
We, the Schindler family, wish to respond to the statement of Michael Schiavo published by the media on October 20, 2003. Mr. Schiavo’s statement is an exercise in self-justification that completely rewrites the true history of his efforts to have our Terri put to death by starvation and dehydration.
Here are the facts that Mr. Schiavo has hidden in his statement:
Terri, on Mr. Schiavo’s orders, has had no therapy of any kind since the Fall of 1991.
At a medical malpractice trial in November 1992, Mr. Schiavo swore to the jury that he would devote any jury award to Terri’s care and rehabilitation and he promised under oath that he would take care of Terri for the rest of his life.
After securing an award of over $700,000 for Terri’s care, Mr. Schiavo did an about-face, and has spent the last 10 years in a determined campaign to cause Terri’s death.
This campaign began within a few months of the malpractice award, when, in mid-1993, Mr. Schiavo had a “do not resuscitate” order placed in Terri’s medical chart.
In June of 1993 Mr. Schiavo refused to allow treatment of an infection Terri had developed, later admitting under oath that he expected the infection to progress to a fatal sepsis that would kill Terri.
In 1995, contrary to his promises to the jury that he would honor his marriage vows, Mr. Schiavo, who still pretends to be Terri’s “loving” and “grieving” husband, began living with another woman, by whom he has conceived two children out-of-wedlock. He calls this woman his fiancée, even while his wife Terri lays starving and dehydrating to death in hospice for the terminally ill---to which he consigned her three years ago so that she would receive no therapy.
It was not until 1998, when Mr. Schiavo hired Mr. Felos, that Mr. Schiavo suddenly “remembered” that Terri had made some vague remarks about not wanting to be sustained on anything “artificial” if she became incapacitated.
When he promised the malpractice jury back in 1993 that he would take care of Terri for the rest of his life, Mr. Schiavo said nothing to the jury about Terri not wanting to be sustained on anything “artificial.”
Mr. Schiavo’s crocodile tears and his statement that “I struggle with” the Court’s order to starve and dehydrate Terri defy belief. That order is the end result of Mr. Schiavo’s utter determination to see Terri dead so that he can marry his “fiancée.”
Even though he has no Court order authorizing his actions, Mr. Schiavo has not only removed the feeding tube that has sustained our Terri for 13 years, but has also ordered that no attempt be made to feed Terri by mouth, even if she could be trained to take sustenance orally.
On Saturday, October 18, 2003, one of Mr. Schiavo’s team of lawyers refused to allow our Terri to receive her final Holy Communion. This lawyer would not even allow Msgr. Malanowski to place a miniscule piece of the Host on her tongue. Perhaps Michael fears that if Terri can swallow a piece of the Host, the whole world will know he is starving a helpless woman who can take sustenance by mouth.
Mr. Schiavo has spent the great bulk of Terri’s malpractice award on legal fees for Mr. Felos, in an effort to have Terri killed. He spent nothing on Terri’s therapy and rehabilitation---contrary to the promises he made to the jury, under oath, more than ten years ago.
We cannot allow Mr. Schiavo’s lies to go unanswered. We pray that God will see to it that justice is done and that our Terri’s life is delivered from the clutches of this ruthless man, who dares to pretend that he is grieving with us over what he has done to Terri.
October 21, 2003
Robert Schindler
Mary Schindler
Robert Schindler. Jr.
Suzanne Schindler Carr
posted on March 26, 2005 06:27:16 AM new
As you can tell by this discussion board everyone doesn't agree with everyone. So why should it be different in Congress?
Just because someone is Republican (notice spelling) doesn't mean they like everything Pres. Bush has done and I know that the Democrats (notice spelling) don't like him at all. So what's new. It is the same in life...
posted on March 26, 2005 06:47:34 AM new
Libra - ....everyone doesn't agree with everyone. So why should it be different in Congress? It wouldn't be. Especially since 47 democrats voted for it too. Wonder if they're having the same 'disagreements' that MSNBC didn't mention or if they're still believing what they did was the right thing to do.
------------
And on disagreeing....I want to say something else to you cheryl. It's been YOU, not I, that has more than once posted in the EO that you're NEVER going to post there or here, in the RT. But you keep coming back....even though you've also implied more than once it's just so terrible over here. You have implied that there are just some here you can no longer take....and that you are just going to leave - or that's why you don't post here as often as you once did.
Well...take a look in your own mirror, maybe you'll be able to see your own contribution to what you feel you face here. And remember what Itray (sp) once told you about how you ask for one thing, but give your energies to something negative.
Have you ever given any thought to the fact that YOUR ACTIONS might be the cause of some of what you get back? This is a good example of your actions towards those who don't hold your same political views.
posted on March 26, 2005 07:54:13 AM new Libra - Her name was Carla Iyers. And she said that the police did investigate her concerns in 1996.
Well Linda , if the police investigated the claim and bout nothing was done to Michael doesn't that imply that they found no proof of the claim?
Interesting interview last night with a friend of Greers BTW - for all of the complaints about liberal apointed judges, this is a longtime conservative elected one. A deeply religious one as well whose longtime church just asked him not to return.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 26, 2005 08:07:20 AM new
Well..fenix - all I heard was that there were two nurses who asked the police to come investigate their claims in 1996....this was one of them. Supposedly the policeman who was involved in this is not willing to speak about it...or hasn't come forward at this point. Some are saying he should be called to explain why this one incident wasn't handled appropriately - filed with the court as it should have been, was my understanding. Some feel he should be made to account for why this report either wasn't filed...or didn't go through the normal process that these types of abuse claims usually do.
I don't know for sure, of course, but it sounded to me like IF there was a lawsuit....Greer had better be able to explain this investigators actions.
--
[i]who have asked him not to return[/b]. Did they say why they asked him to leave? Was it because of his support/part in this particular case...or his position on euthanasia?
Did you hear why?
posted on March 26, 2005 08:22:21 AM new
This morning on MSN:
""Also Friday, the FBI said a man was arrested in Fairview, N.C., allegedly for offering a $250,000 bounty for Michael Schiavo's death and $50,000 for that of a judge in the case. The FBI did not identify the judge.
Richard Alan Meywes allegedly sent the threatening e-mail Tuesday to two Tampa-area news organizations and the host of a national conservative talk show, the FBI said.
Meywes was taken into custody at his home and charged with murder for hire and with the transmission of interstate threatening communications, the FBI said. If convicted, Meywes could face up to 15 years in prison and fines up to $500,000.""
Must be one of those CHRISTIAN RIGHT-TO-LIFE neocons
posted on March 26, 2005 11:20:32 AM new
::Some are saying he should be called to explain why this one incident wasn't handled appropriately - filed with the court as it should have been, was my understanding.::
There is no court filing if nothing is found to substantiate the allegations Linda. Strange that the people that seem to be complaining about the legalities of this case appear to have no understanding of the legal process.
While in the world would Greer have to explain why he did not allow testimony regarding an action that a police investigation foundto be groundless? That's exactly what he is supposed to do.
Also...you cannot sue a judge.
Like I said - for some reason - poeople seem to be advocating a complete trash and burn on the rules of law in this case... quite honestly - it's scary.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 26, 2005 11:23:14 AM new
:: Did they say why they asked him to leave? Was it because of his support/part in this particular case...or his position on euthanasia? Did you hear why?::
Since it happened last weekend I am assuming it is this case. Apparently a judge ruling according to law, as he was elected to do, as opposed to church doctrine and personal beliefs is a no-no.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 26, 2005 02:49:46 PM new
This whole thread is moot now. The last court denied the Schlinders, and they are not going to pursue this any longer.
posted on March 27, 2005 08:13:51 AM new
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-delay27mar27,0,5710023.story?coll=la-home-headlines
March 27, 2005
THE TERRI SCHIAVO CASE
DeLay's Own Tragic Crossroads
(Delay Pulled the Plug on his own father.)
# Family of the lawmaker involved in the Schiavo case decided in '88 to let his comatose father die.
By Walter F. Roche Jr. and Sam Howe Verhovek, Times Staff Writers
CANYON LAKE, Texas — A family tragedy that unfolded in a Texas hospital during the fall of 1988 was a private ordeal — without judges, emergency sessions of Congress or the debate raging outside Terri Schiavo's Florida hospice.
The patient then was a 65-year-old drilling contractor, badly injured in a freak accident at his home. Among the family members keeping vigil at Brooke Army Medical Center was a grieving junior congressman — Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas).
More than 16 years ago, far from the political passions that have defined the Schiavo controversy, the DeLay family endured its own wrenching end-of-life crisis. The man in a coma, kept alive by intravenous lines and oxygen equipment, was DeLay's father, Charles Ray DeLay.
Then, freshly reelected to a third term in the House, the 41-year-old DeLay waited, all but helpless, for the verdict of doctors.
Today, as House Majority Leader, DeLay has teamed with his Senate counterpart, Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), to champion political intervention in the Schiavo case. They pushed emergency legislation through Congress to shift the legal case from Florida state courts to the federal judiciary.
And DeLay is among the strongest advocates of keeping the woman, who doctors say has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, connected to her feeding tube. DeLay has denounced Schiavo's husband, as well as judges, for committing what he calls "an act of barbarism" in removing the tube.
In 1988, however, there was no such fiery rhetoric as the congressman quietly joined the sad family consensus to let his father die.
"There was no point to even really talking about it," Maxine DeLay, the congressman's 81-year-old widowed mother, recalled in an interview last week. "There was no way [Charles] wanted to live like that. Tom knew — we all knew — his father wouldn't have wanted to live that way."
Doctors advised that he would "basically be a vegetable," said the congressman's aunt, JoAnne DeLay.
When his father's kidneys failed, the DeLay family decided against connecting him to a dialysis machine. "Extraordinary measures to prolong life were not initiated," said his medical report, citing "agreement with the family's wishes." His bedside chart carried the instruction: "Do not resuscitate."
On Dec. 14, 1988, the DeLay patriarch "expired with his family in attendance."
"The situation faced by the congressman's family was entirely different than Terri Schiavo's," said a spokesman for the majority leader, who declined requests for an interview.
"The only thing keeping her alive is the food and water we all need to survive. His father was on a ventilator and other machines to sustain him," said Dan Allen, DeLay's press aide.
There were also these similarities: Both stricken patients were severely brain-damaged. Both were incapable of surviving without medical assistance. Both were said to have expressed a desire to be spared from being kept alive by artificial means. And neither of them had a living will.
This previously unpublished account of the majority leader's personal brush with life-ending decisions was assembled from court files, medical records and interviews with family members.
posted on March 27, 2005 08:37:26 AM new
Exactly, twig, and why this case has drawn National and World Wide attention - because it's NOT the same as thousands of these cases are handled when the families are in agreement.
posted on March 27, 2005 08:50:33 AM new
Maggie, not only did he agree to pull the plug on his father but his family sued "the distributor and maker of a coupling that the family said had failed and caused the tram to hurtle out of control", a right by the way he has voted to deny other people. Delay's own brother was the lawyer representing the family. If you want to read the article it is in the bottom section of the longer article at the LA Times. Talk about flipflopping hypocrits.
posted on March 27, 2005 08:56:36 AM new
What kind of a husband is Michael to his wife? So explain to me what does he do for her that a husband is supposed to do. Does he provide for her. NO, if your answer is yes what does he do.
It is in name only. Why didn't he give gardianship to her family as he has an illigimate family that he plays house with so I think that this is a conflict of interest. Her kidneys didn't fail. She wasn't on any machines. The only thing was a feeding tube which probably could have been avoided if therapy had been started earlier. JMHO.
posted on March 27, 2005 09:02:32 AM new
I agree, Libra. Once he moved in with the 'other woman' he no longer should have had the ability to make ANY decisions regarding Terri's care...let alone retain the ability to order her killed.
The strongest conflict of interest I've ever read about. And the family did try to gain custody..guardianship...but then we get back to ol' Judge Greer.
posted on March 27, 2005 09:06:58 AM new
I just thought it was hypocritical of Delay to grandstand and state one thing but in fact has done the opposite. He and his family agreed that his father shouldn't live under these conditions, but he believes in the case of Terri that she should?
BTW...It's not looking good for Terri Schiavo or for Pope John Paul II.. who will die first is anyone's guess...
But.. I am sure the Repugs will keep Terri's memory alive for a long time in martyrdom..to use against those death loving liberals..
posted on March 27, 2005 09:12:58 AM new
Thanks for the link, getalife.
Delay keeps digging his own grave....soon he will only need a gentle push..imo...(one can hope, anyway)
posted on March 27, 2005 09:19:39 AM new
No maggie the Catholics will keep the Pope's name alive longer as he was a very strong person.
Michael Schiavo's name will be kept alive longer as he wished his legal wife to die.
Okay crowfarm you were so quick to answer tell me other than legal what was michael schiavo to Terri. Did he take the wedding vows seriously? He would stand by her in sickness and in health. Did he stand by her by taking up with a girlfriend and having children with her? Who I feel sorry for the children of this illegial reunion. What must they think. It will live with them for a long time.
_________________
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
