Terry Schiavo allowed to die

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Buz2b
LOL! The problem with that argument is that you already have liberal judges playing the legislative role and changing/making laws with their rulings. Which is worse?!?! To me, both are wrong but you sure don't hear that from the left, now do you? Hipocracy at it's finest.
Sorry (Not!) to interrupt the left feeding frenzy here but I couldn't resist. You can go back to your bashing the "vast right wing conspiracy, religeous zealot, brow beating, war mongering Republicans" now. The truth interruption is over. :laugh:

Someone didn't pay attention in 'civics' class.

Throwing out a law is not 'legislating'.

I actually did well in Civics. Judges are there to adjudicate. Our elected officials are there to make laws according to the will of the people. Throwing out laws is the same as making new laws. That is not a judges job. Period. The point stands.

As others have already pointed out, you get a great big F for that response, because it is incorrect. This isn't a value judgement, it isn't a difference of opinion, your statement is just plain wrong and there's nothing to be done about it.

You are missing the point. When judges use personal views to interpret the laws and/or constitution, they are legislating. You need only look as far as the 9th district court of appeals to see this. That is the most overturned court in the land. Why do you think that is?? It is also the most liberal court in the land. Lets graduate to math now.......1+1 =____ See if you can fill in the blank.
Another civics lesson for you. Do you know who actually created, holds accountable and can change the federal judicial system as we know it, with the exception of the Supreme Court? Bonus points for that one guys.

 

[Fern]

Its interesting that you think the standard of proof hasn't been met seeing as you weren't present at the trials and privy to the information at them. EVERY judge to hear this case has sided with Mr. Shiavo. That's a telling fact. I'd believe one or two judges could make a mistake, but every single one of them? Face it, you're wrong.

This is something I've been wondering about.

Seems to me the way it works is that the first court is where the facts are determined (as well as apply the law). When you go on to appeals court the finding of facts is not allowed to be re-visited. Rather, the various appeals courts will rule on whether or not law was applied correctly given the facts as determined by the first court.

Accordingly, if the first court found as part of facts that Micheal was her guardian, this particular aspect would not be "retried" or appealed.

Is there a lawyer in the house?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Buz2b
You are missing the point. When judges use personal views to interpret the laws and/or constitution, they are legislating. You need only look as far as the 9th district court of appeals to see this. That is the most overturned court in the land. Why do you think that is?? It is also the most liberal court in the land. Lets graduate to math now.......1+1 =____ See if you can fill in the blank.
Another civics lesson for you. Do you know who actually created, holds accountable and can change the federal judicial system as we know it, with the exception of the Supreme Court? Bonus points for that one guys.

I'm not missing the point at all - of course if a judge throws out a law based only on their personal views, they have overstepped their authority. Unfortunately, you haven't provided any evidence that this occurs regularly, and you certainly haven't proven that 'liberal' judges are more likely to do this; they may however be more likely to interpret protections as applying broadly. At any rate, your math question is best characterized as 'what is one apple plus one orange' and we all know the answer to that one.

Your charge of 'legislating from the bench' may be accurate in some cases, but in general such a claim has about as much credibility as 'playing the race card' or simply 'crying wolf' in today's world; the claim is made far more often than it shoud be, by any legitimate measure.

As for your civics lesson, I'm not American, and no, I don't know, though I would guess the AG.

 

[HeaterCore]

Originally posted by: Fern

Its interesting that you think the standard of proof hasn't been met seeing as you weren't present at the trials and privy to the information at them. EVERY judge to hear this case has sided with Mr. Shiavo. That's a telling fact. I'd believe one or two judges could make a mistake, but every single one of them? Face it, you're wrong.

This is something I've been wondering about.

Seems to me the way it works is that the first court is where the facts are determined (as well as apply the law). When you go on to appeals court the finding of facts is not allowed to be re-visited. Rather, the various appeals courts will rule on whether or not law was applied correctly given the facts as determined by the first court.

Accordingly, if the first court found as part of facts that Micheal was her guardian, this particular aspect would not be "retried" or appealed.

Is there a lawyer in the house?

That's generally correct. Trial courts determine the facts, and appellate courts determine errors in the application of law. Can you imagine the sheer impracticality of reassembling the parties, the witnesses, and the evidence for each and every appeal? And barring that, a trial court is obviously better qualified to decide matters of fact than appellate courts because they have personally seen all of the evidence.

However -- and this is where the "but it's just wrong!" allegation falls apart in the Schiavo case -- there are two common exceptions. First, where findings of fact are just clearly wrong, appellate courts can expressly disavow them as "clearly erroneous." (In one of the most common examples, in the south about fifty years ago it wasn't uncommon to find a black man sentenced to death for a crime committed while he was obviously in another state altogether; an appellate court could void his conviction as "against the weight of the evidence," even though that's a finding of fact.) Second, courts are often willing to consider pertinent new information, especially in cases with stakes as high as these. If there was credible new evidence that Schaivo was actually conscious, that tube would be reinserted damned quickly.

-HC-

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Wow, the crazies are out in force. All the judges , allll the way up to to and including the Supreme Court are wrong?
Yeah. OK. :roll:

Yeah, like they were in 2000, huh?

only the 5 that mattered the most (Scalia, Thomas,et al). The rest i.e. Florida Supreme Court, should have been allowed to decide that case as it was.

 

[Fern]

Thanks HC

there are two common exceptions. First, where findings of fact are just clearly wrong, appellate courts can expressly disavow them as "clearly erroneous." (In one of the most common examples, in the south about fifty years ago it wasn't uncommon to find a black man sentenced to death for a crime committed while he was obviously in another state altogether; an appellate court could void his conviction as "against the weight of the evidence," even though that's a finding of fact.) Second, courts are often willing to consider pertinent new information, especially in cases with stakes as high as these. If there was credible new evidence that Schaivo was actually conscious, that tube would be reinserted damned quickly.

2 things disturb me about this case: (1) she was ruled to have a "living will" (or whatever the term, actually a "dying will" seems a more appropriate term to me), not because a document she executed was found, but from hear-say type testimony. (2) Her husband is chosen as her guardian although he has moved on. This seems to have prevented her parents from having any imput into her affairs (treatment, tests etc.).

I am guessing the above two issues would be included in the findings of fact. If so, seems to me about the only thing which could occur to cause an exception allowing the appellate courts to reconsider the living will issue w/b somebody finding that she did in fact execute an actual living will document and that within she had asserted a desire to remain on life support

And as far as her husband being her guardian, well seems they'd have to find out that he was not in fact married to her in order to revist that isue

(as far as new evidence, since her husband won't allow the other two tests nor permit any therapy, appears she'd have to just "wake up" on her own to meet the second execption)

If my assumptions are correct, then only ONE judge (in the initial trial) would have ever looked at the 2 issues which concern me.

In other words, she may have been "screwed" from the outset. It all boils down to one man's decision- the trial court judge- made years ago.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Wow, the crazies are out in force. All the judges , allll the way up to to and including the Supreme Court are wrong?
Yeah. OK. :roll:

No, seems only one judge.

After the first trial it would appear no other judge ever got to examine the facts.

 

[imported_tss4]

Fern, nothing in your post indicates that the judge did anything other than interpret the law to the best of his ability. I fail to see any legislating from the bench. If the florida or us legislature's had wanted to pass legislation that would have done something, they could have. Instead all they did was pass a bill that let the federal courts look at this case. If you have a problem with how this was handled, the responsibility lies squarely with the legislature. The judicial review process interpreted law, as its suppose to.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: tss4
Fern, nothing in your post indicates that the judge did anything other than interpret the law to the best of his ability. I fail to see any legislating from the bench. If the florida or us legislature's had wanted to pass legislation that would have done something, they could have. Instead all they did was pass a bill that let the federal courts look at this case. If you have a problem with how this was handled, the responsibility lies squarely with the legislature. The judicial review process interpreted law, as its suppose to.

+1

I have yet to see any evidence that the law was "misapplied", and apparently the appellate courts feel the same way.

 

[arsbanned]

Yep. Get over it, right- to- life- for- anyone- except- the- brown- people- sitting- on- our- oil'ers.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yep. Get over it, right- to- life- for- anyone- except- the- brown- people- sitting- on- our- oil'ers.

not a helpful comment

 

[JulesMaximus]

NM.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yep. Get over it, right- to- life- for- anyone- except- the- brown- people- sitting- on- our- oil'ers.

not a helpful comment

No, but also not always inaccurate.

 

[halik]

if you wanna see suffering,
check the pictures of the US CASUALITIES on ogrish. The same people that wanna keep her body alive are responsible for the injuries and deaths of the ones pictured there.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yep. Get over it, right- to- life- for- anyone- except- the- brown- people- sitting- on- our- oil'ers.

not a helpful comment

It's there to help people see the hypocrisy in their thinking.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: tss4
Fern, nothing in your post indicates that the judge did anything other than interpret the law to the best of his ability. I fail to see any legislating from the bench. If the florida or us legislature's had wanted to pass legislation that would have done something, they could have. Instead all they did was pass a bill that let the federal courts look at this case. If you have a problem with how this was handled, the responsibility lies squarely with the legislature. The judicial review process interpreted law, as its suppose to.

I'm not speaking to "legislating from the bench", nor am I interested in any "politics" in this matter. It's the judicial process

My curiousity arose from numerous comments about this being looked by umpteen number of judges. I beleive such remarks are misleading...

The law, simply stated, seems to be (1) if someone's in a PVS, and (2) they have a living will saying they wished to have the plug pulled, the LW being neccessary because
otherwise FL law must PRESUME intent to live, and (3) a guardian who will go along.

Whoever gets to decide/rule on facts #1, 2 and 3 pretty much determines the outcome as THE LAW doesn't seem to complicated or difficult. Rather, it seems to me that the difficulty, or most important part, is in determing facts #1-3. And it seems only ONE person every got to look at #1-3.

So, the assertion that this "case" has been look into many times by different judges all coming to the same conclusion is misleading and inaccurate. Just the academics/law of the case would have been reviewed. None of the substanial facts would seem to have gotten even a second look.

nothing in your post indicates that the judge did anything other than interpret the law to the best of his ability. I

The trial judge, exactly one person, is the only one who ruled on the facts (as best as I can tell). IMHO, it is the facts which are the most important aspect of this case. Having only one person make the "life or death" decision, with no reveiw whatsoever, troubles me.

He may have done his best that day. He may or may not have been on his best game in this one case. He may or may not have been working under a huge caseload. He may or may not have even cared He may have been asleep (this happened to me in court, and he issued a ruling on the facts which I disagreed with. Too bad, you're screwed. Can't relitigate the facts. My attorney was upset. He had caught the other party in a substantial lie, conflicting with his deposition and previous testimony. The judge seemingly didn't care. He allowed the "revised" testimony, without any corraboration to stand as fact.)

Errors are surley made, and if an error in fact, never get a chance to correct it or review it.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yep. Get over it, right- to- life- for- anyone- except- the- brown- people- sitting- on- our- oil'ers.

not a helpful comment

It's there to help people see the hypocrisy in their thinking.

It's there so we can see how much out of reality you are.

 

[arsbanned]

The evidence shows otherwise.

 

[Dewey]

It's a horrible situation with no pleasant outcome.
The bottom line for me is that if I were in her situation I would want my wife to make my decisions, not anyone else. Especially not politicians. Of course, if my wife and parents disagreed it would be a very difficult situation.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yep. Get over it, right- to- life- for- anyone- except- the- brown- people- sitting- on- our- oil'ers.

not a helpful comment

It's there to help people see the hypocrisy in their thinking.

It's there so we can see how much out of reality you are.

Right...so numerous polls that say that the American people as a majority support the decision (pull the tube/"get over it") are all wrong (lemme guess...that "lying commie anti-American liberul media" at work again?)

Enjoy

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yep. Get over it, right- to- life- for- anyone- except- the- brown- people- sitting- on- our- oil'ers.

not a helpful comment

It's there to help people see the hypocrisy in their thinking.

It's there so we can see how much out of reality you are.

Right...so numerous polls that say that the American people as a majority support the decision (pull the tube/"get over it") are all wrong (lemme guess...that "lying commie anti-American liberul media" at work again?)

Enjoy

Poor Republican Puppet Sean Hannity, he is down there in Florida screaming his head off, he is absolutely beside himself and says he doesn't believe the polls show the majority of Americans say let her go.

How come Sean doesn't put Terri on the Air???

Come on Sean, you're so sure she is just napping, wake her up.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yep. Get over it, right- to- life- for- anyone- except- the- brown- people- sitting- on- our- oil'ers.

not a helpful comment

It's there to help people see the hypocrisy in their thinking.

It's there so we can see how much out of reality you are.

Right...so numerous polls that say that the American people as a majority support the decision (pull the tube/"get over it") are all wrong (lemme guess...that "lying commie anti-American liberul media" at work again?)

Enjoy

Poor Republican Puppet Sean Hannity, he is down there in Florida screaming his head off, he is absolutely beside himself and says he doesn't believe the polls show the majority of Americans say let her go.

How come Sean doesn't put Terri on the Air???

Come on Sean, you're so sure she is just napping, wake her up.

Hell no, I want to see her testify before Congress, and shake the presidents hand and blow him kiss

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Dewey
It's a horrible situation with no pleasant outcome.
The bottom line for me is that if I were in her situation I would want my wife to make my decisions, not anyone else. Especially not politicians. Of course, if my wife and parents disagreed it would be a very difficult situation.

exactly.
regardless of where i stand on the issue, wanting her to continue with feeding or it being removed and allowed to die, i do not feel it is appropriate for everyone to be a part of this decision.
i think the political tool being weilded here is obvious to everyone and its a damn shame.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: tss4
Fern, nothing in your post indicates that the judge did anything other than interpret the law to the best of his ability. I fail to see any legislating from the bench. If the florida or us legislature's had wanted to pass legislation that would have done something, they could have. Instead all they did was pass a bill that let the federal courts look at this case. If you have a problem with how this was handled, the responsibility lies squarely with the legislature. The judicial review process interpreted law, as its suppose to.

I'm not speaking to "legislating from the bench", nor am I interested in any "politics" in this matter. It's the judicial process

My curiousity arose from numerous comments about this being looked by umpteen number of judges. I beleive such remarks are misleading...

The law, simply stated, seems to be (1) if someone's in a PVS, and (2) they have a living will saying they wished to have the plug pulled, the LW being neccessary because
otherwise FL law must PRESUME intent to live, and (3) a guardian who will go along.

Whoever gets to decide/rule on facts #1, 2 and 3 pretty much determines the outcome as THE LAW doesn't seem to complicated or difficult. Rather, it seems to me that the difficulty, or most important part, is in determing facts #1-3. And it seems only ONE person every got to look at #1-3.

So, the assertion that this "case" has been look into many times by different judges all coming to the same conclusion is misleading and inaccurate. Just the academics/law of the case would have been reviewed. None of the substanial facts would seem to have gotten even a second look.

nothing in your post indicates that the judge did anything other than interpret the law to the best of his ability. I

The trial judge, exactly one person, is the only one who ruled on the facts (as best as I can tell). IMHO, it is the facts which are the most important aspect of this case. Having only one person make the "life or death" decision, with no reveiw whatsoever, troubles me.

He may have done his best that day. He may or may not have been on his best game in this one case. He may or may not have been working under a huge caseload. He may or may not have even cared He may have been asleep (this happened to me in court, and he issued a ruling on the facts which I disagreed with. Too bad, you're screwed. Can't relitigate the facts. My attorney was upset. He had caught the other party in a substantial lie, conflicting with his deposition and previous testimony. The judge seemingly didn't care. He allowed the "revised" testimony, without any corraboration to stand as fact.)

Errors are surley made, and if an error in fact, never get a chance to correct it or review it.

I am not a lawyer but I have a cousin who is. He said (leaving out all the legal jumbo) that if anyone of those judges had felt that the case was decided incorrectly, they could have retried the case. So, the statement that upteen judges have sided with Mr. Shiavo is entirely accurate.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Fern
Thanks HC

there are two common exceptions. First, where findings of fact are just clearly wrong, appellate courts can expressly disavow them as "clearly erroneous." (In one of the most common examples, in the south about fifty years ago it wasn't uncommon to find a black man sentenced to death for a crime committed while he was obviously in another state altogether; an appellate court could void his conviction as "against the weight of the evidence," even though that's a finding of fact.) Second, courts are often willing to consider pertinent new information, especially in cases with stakes as high as these. If there was credible new evidence that Schaivo was actually conscious, that tube would be reinserted damned quickly.

2 things disturb me about this case: (1) she was ruled to have a "living will" (or whatever the term, actually a "dying will" seems a more appropriate term to me), not because a document she executed was found, but from hear-say type testimony. (2) Her husband is chosen as her guardian although he has moved on. This seems to have prevented her parents from having any imput into her affairs (treatment, tests etc.).

I am guessing the above two issues would be included in the findings of fact. If so, seems to me about the only thing which could occur to cause an exception allowing the appellate courts to reconsider the living will issue w/b somebody finding that she did in fact execute an actual living will document and that within she had asserted a desire to remain on life support

And as far as her husband being her guardian, well seems they'd have to find out that he was not in fact married to her in order to revist that isue

(as far as new evidence, since her husband won't allow the other two tests nor permit any therapy, appears she'd have to just "wake up" on her own to meet the second execption)

If my assumptions are correct, then only ONE judge (in the initial trial) would have ever looked at the 2 issues which concern me.

In other words, she may have been "screwed" from the outset. It all boils down to one man's decision- the trial court judge- made years ago.

Fern

You've got your facts wrong:

A husband is automatically responsible for a spouse who is unable to speak for herself. He's been trying to get the feeding tube removed for 15 years. It's the parents who have been causing the delays with their endless legal challenges.

In cases like these, where there is no written document, decisions are based on what is considered the best estimate of what the patient would have wanted. Michael Schaivo has said from the beginning, 15 years ago, that his wife would not have wanted to be kept alive. The decision of the courts that looked into the matter was that Michael Schaivo's view was more persuasive than that of Terri's parents'.

As to his "moving on", what do you expect reasonably for a devoted husband to do when your in-laws are delaying, delaying, delaying. He could have divorced Terri and washed his hands of the matter. But he's remained married to her all these years, and litigated on her behalf.

Do you think it's fair to expect him to also remain celibate and uninvolved, when the "person" he is married to is no longer there? Be fair about this: What do you think it is reasonable to expect for a man put into this position? Remember, if his decision had been carried out when the judgement that Terri was in a PVS first occurred, Michael would have been a free man many years ago.