Zogby Poll: Americans Not in Favor of Starving Terri Schiavo

Discussion in 'World News / Current Events Forum' started by Tom Phillips*, Apr 6, 2005.

  1. Chewie

    Chewie Refuge Member

    Messages:
    62
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    I have to disagree. Had the original court been corrupted, its rulings would have been overturned by one of the many appeals. The fact that the appeals were denied, validates the courts initial ruling in the eyes of the law. It is impossible for me to believe that every court presented with this case was part of a vast conspiracy.

    Yes, a law was passed by Congress allowing the court to review the case. The courts, including the Supreme Court, determined that review was not necessary, several times.

    This case presented quite a conundrum. The family argued that Terri's rights were being violated. However, any law passed preventing the tube removal would have violated Terri's rights as it removed her ability to decide, or in this case her legal guardian, whose surrogate decision capacity had already been affirmed by the court.

    As far as the courts exceeding authority by reading meaning into law, I also disagree. It is the court's job to interpret law. That's what they do and it is their authority. As for legislating from the bench I have found this is to be the cry of whichever side disagrees with the ruling.
     
  2. Glendonboy

    Glendonboy Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    5,118
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Maryland by way of Glendon, NC
    Living wills are not air tight. If a one sibling doesn't go along the doctors will be afraid to abide by the living will for fear of a law suit.

    I think they have the right to question his even being her spouse when he is living with another woman and has children. In some states wouldn't that be called common law marriage, adultry, or could be construed as bigomy. Not to mention it could taint the husbands best wishes. I think Terri's parents should have the right to question his motives and authority. I wonder how many of you in the same situation wouldn't try to hold on to your child if you thought it best.
     
  3. Tom Phillips*

    Tom Phillips* Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,622
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area, California

    The Court far exceeds its authority. It does far more than interpret law. It effectively writes law from its rulings. The shame of it is, the Legislative and the Executive branches have put up with it. The place for legislation is in the Houses of the People (the Senate and the House of Representatives) for federal law. Strict Constitutionalists will disagree that the court has the right to write law from the bench regardless of whether or not a certain reading is favorable to them.
     
  4. R Waller

    R Waller Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,439
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2000
    Location:
    77077
    everyone has to understand tom's history.
    IF you disagree with him, you're a nazi... :grvn
    even if his opinion is illegal, you're a nazi.... :tu
    which is a riot :grvn


    I believe Lance nailed....

    They did not "Murder" a "defenseless woman" they stopped nourishing a dead woman.
     
  5. Tom Phillips*

    Tom Phillips* Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,622
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area, California
    If you want to understand Tom*'s history, you can research his posts.

    Tom* makes the point that the Nazis followed their own laws as they were killing the weak and defenseless in their country and the countries they invaded. Tom* has pointed out that what was done in Florida with Terri Schinder Schiavo closely parallels what the Nazis did.
     
  6. Chewie

    Chewie Refuge Member

    Messages:
    62
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    This is what I was talking about. What the Schindlers thought best is not important. It is was Terri would have decided had she had the ability that is important. My previous post was an attempt to point out that the focus may not always be where it should. I can certainly empathize with the Schindlers but, again, their rights were not the issue, it was Terri's rights.

    I never said the Schindlers had no business questioning the husband. To the contrary, I mentioned in the same post that there are ways of disqualifying a surrogate decision maker. In this case, nothing the Schindlers presented convinced the court this was warranted.

    Again, the goal of a surrogate decision maker is to arrive at the decision that the patient, if she had been able, would have come to. It doesn't matter what the parents want or the husband wants, or even what the public wants. What that individual would have wanted is all important. The court found that the husband was capable of doing this and the ruling was affirmed following numerous appeals and significant scrutiny.

    I can't disagree that this situation would not have received the notoriety it did had the husband's circumstances been different.

    I will tell you, however, that the court is in a significant better position to evaluate his role as a surrogate decision maker than I. Both sides were able to present their case and although I have read quite a bit, it pales in comparison to hearing arguments from both sides and having all the information. As I mentioned before, I doubt that each of the courts that heard appeals on this case either did not care or were part of a conspiracy to aid the husband.

    As far as living wills go, if done right they hold up well. In a living will, essentially, the patient directs his health care before he loses the capacity to do so. The burden is significant to overturn them if done properly, because you are essentially overruling that individual's decision and violating his rights. For example, if a Dr. gave a treatment and in doing so knowingly ignored a living will, he would be, in essence, assaulting that patient.

    I also mentioned a durable POA. Designating someone as your legal representative tends to be more flexible than a living will because only so many issues and scenarios can be addressed in a living will. You just have to make sure they are on the same page as you.
     
  7. Tom Phillips*

    Tom Phillips* Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,622
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area, California
    Additionally, when a law was passed by both houses of the Congress, and signed by the President in order that a new case be started in order to review all the evidence, it was denied by the corrupt Judge Greer.
     
  8. Chewie

    Chewie Refuge Member

    Messages:
    62
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    Tom-
    What specific ruling, of the multitude in this case, are you referring to? What court are you referring to? In what way, specifically, did the judiciary exceed their authority?
    Again, the legislature writes the laws, the courts determine constitutionality and interprets them.
    Congress gave the Federal Courts the ability to review the case. The Feds declined to do so, numerous times.
    The husband was the legal guardian and the courts found no reason to remove him or believe that his decisions did not reflect what Terri would have wanted. This is all despite numerous appeals and an amazing amount of public scrutiny.
     
  9. Chewie

    Chewie Refuge Member

    Messages:
    62
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    One of us has things confused. The law passed by Congress and signed into law by the President gave the Federal Court the ability to review the case, from what I understand. This would mean to me that Judge Greer had no ability to deny it.
     
  10. Tom Phillips*

    Tom Phillips* Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,622
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area, California
    I was speaking in general on the Court (general statement on the Judicial) overstepping its authority in establishing law by making decisions from the bench that effectively establish acceptable behavior on the part of citizens. Laws are supposed to do that, as they will come from the people whose behavior is to be modified. Laws should come from the houses of the people, where the people have some representation and recourse to bad laws (i.e. they can vote the bad lawmakers out).

    It is my understanding that Terri's law directed the court to review the case because of all the conflicts and suppression of evidence; to give a de novo hearing. Judge Greer overstepped his bounds and tried to scare off any new hearing. Nobody had the huevos to call him on it.

    The Supreme Court decided not to hear the case because it was too narrow. Had it represented a "class", they perhaps would have heard it. Denial of a hearing by the Supreme Court just means that there are not enough people affected by it for them to bother with.

    That the court found no reason to deprive Michael Schiavo of his rights to determine the life and death of his "wife" Terri Schindler Schiavo, even though he was living with another woman, and had fathered two children with her is pretty much at the heart of this travesty of justice.
     

Share This Page