The Terri Schiavo Case

[MikeFerrara]

And once again, today, as the 11th Federal Circuit Court in full quorum has once again upheld the lower courts' rulings. Although judges sometimes disagree with each other, normally they are the brightest people in the world for making these tough decisions.

I'm not sure I agree with that. If they can't agree some one has to be wrong. Maybe all of them. I'm not a judge or a lwayer but I've been around long enough to know that the last thing you want is for a court to have any say so about anything in your life.

Correct me if I'm wrong but an upper court upholding a lower court decision only means that they agree with the legal interpretation of the lower court and the appropriatness of the procedures. However the law itself is very often illogical and not even consistant within it's own logic. Of course our only choice there is to follow it until it can be changed.


Who of us who doesn't create life should be deciding when some one elses life is worth living and who's next? And if we are to place our judgement at such a lofty level and decide who should live and who shouldn't are we going to use dehydration to kill them? And on the say of a spouse with an entire family outside the marriage? That's a hard one to top. I think civilization has reached a new low. True state sponsored murder without even having a rogue dictator. Shoot with all the references to pets in this thread, we apparantly can no longer even differentiate between our family and our food.

 

[Maya]

Who of us who doesn't create life should be deciding when some one elses life is worth living and who's next? And if we are to place our judgement at such a lofty level and decide who should live and who shouldn't are we going to use dehydration to kill them? And on the say of a spouse with an entire family outside the marriage? That's a hard one to top. I think civilization has reached a new low.

I don't mean to sound coldhearted, but this case is not truly about whether or not Terri Schiavo lives or dies. It is about the rule of law. It is about privacy. It is about who can speak for us when we are unable to speak for ourselves. We have laws that address this in Florida.

If we don't uphold the rule of law..we will truly reach the lowest low...and that will be when politics, or some one's (the majority? the most powerful?) idea of morals or religion, or emotion, is dictating what should be done.

The only thing we can do in this case is to have thoughtful, reasoned argument in a court of law. Let the party that does not prevail exhaust all legal appeals, then let the rule of law dictate the outcome.

That is what has been done in this case..until the politicians butted in. Now indeed should we all be very worried about the direction we are headed.

I pray for Terri Schiavo and her family. I feel for them. I grieve for the utter sadness of this situation. But that cannot be what decides the outcome.

 

[triton94949]

...Who of us who doesn't create life should be deciding when some one elses life is worth living and who's next?...

That is precisely what judges have been doing throughout history. They can take away your property, they can take away your freedom, and they can take away your life. And the kings, or governors, or presidents have always used troops to send to enforce their judgments. History tells us this has been so for over 4500 years (the law code of Hammurabi). You can also read about it in Moses' law code (3400 years ago). The Greeks and the Romans and the Spanish and the English and the French have done the same.

We have judges because it is too much work for kings, or governors, or presidents to do all the judging alone by themselves. And in America the judicial power and responsibility is separated from the administrative power as well for a balance of powers.

Anytime you have 3 or more people living in close proximity, you are going to need judges, because 3 or more people will not be able to agree on everything all the time.

 

[H2Andy]

Anytime you have 3 or more people living in close proximity, you are going to need judges, because 3 or more people will not be able to agree on everything all the time.

actually, the magic figure for an organized dispute resolution system (what courts,
lawyers, and judges are) is about 50,000 people. up to that point, you can
have decentralized (or even informal) dispute resolution systems work.

once you have that many people, you have to develop a centralized dispute
resolution system or you won't be able to resolve the issue of stability for the
continued growth of the society (and stability comes from (a) lack of personal
vendettas to resolve problems; and (b) a coherent code by which all citizens
can live and expect others to live)

at least according to Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs, and Steel

 

[pipedope]

With doctors who knows but I saw an interview with a doctor who claimed that her condition was likely treatable. They pointed out that this doctor was niminated for a nobel prize for his work in this field. They claim he isn't alone in his opinion. Are they right? Is the medical community that devided on the issue?

Maybe the husbands doctors testify his way and the parents doctors testify theirs. If so then we can't believe any of them. If not it would seem to mean that the medical community isn't even close to a consensus on a prognosis for her. If the medical community is at such odds over what's brain dead maybe we shouldn't bee killing people for being brain dead ...or not being brain dead...or

You know?...often times when you can't find an answer it's because you're asking the wrong questions. I think that may be the case here.

Let's see, is that the Dr who got a congressman to nominate him for a Nobel prize?
BTW Members of congress are not able to officially nominate people for a Nobel prize.
So the Dr is lying about his qualifications, what else is he lying about?

I have seen a Dr that was retained by the parents who said he wanted to see signs that she was responsive but didn't.
Besides, this have been tested, reviewed and litigated.
what did the people who ACTUALLY SAW THE EVIDENCE decide?

It does come down to the rule of law. Rule of law means that you follow the law and don't just jump to change the rules when you don't like what the proper court decided.

Didn't the Bush gang keep saying to not change the rules in the middle during an election a few years ago? Why are they trying to change the rules in the middle of this?

What I don't get is how anyone can claim to be so in favor of life that we should ALWAYS error on the side of life but then turn around and sign death warrants?
They seem to think the courts have failed completely in this case but those same courts are incapable of error in a death penalty criminal case.

On top of that we now have a state agency threatening to kidnap Terri in direct opposition to the courts order.
We have gone back completely to might makes right and the rule is out the window.

Once again, can anyone tell me why THIS woman is so important? Feeding tubes are removed every day in this country. People are denied needed medical treatment every day in this country. People die, who shouldn't, every day in this country. None of that is important but this one woman gets legislators in session in the middle of the night to try and subvert the law for what? An issue that is not their business in the first place.

 

[BIGSAGE136]

Let's see, is that the Dr who got a congressman to nominate him for a Nobel prize?
BTW Members of congress are not able to officially nominate people for a Nobel prize.
So the Dr is lying about his qualifications, what else is he lying about?

I have seen a Dr that was retained by the parents who said he wanted to see signs that she was responsive but didn't.
Besides, this have been tested, reviewed and litigated.
what did the people who ACTUALLY SAW THE EVIDENCE decide?

It does come down to the rule of law. Rule of law means that you follow the law and don't just jump to change the rules when you don't like what the proper court decided.

Didn't the Bush gang keep saying to not change the rules in the middle during an election a few years ago? Why are they trying to change the rules in the middle of this?

What I don't get is how anyone can claim to be so in favor of life that we should ALWAYS error on the side of life but then turn around and sign death warrants?
They seem to think the courts have failed completely in this case but those same courts are incapable of error in a death penalty criminal case.

On top of that we now have a state agency threatening to kidnap Terri in direct opposition to the courts order.
We have gone back completely to might makes right and the rule is out the window.

Once again, can anyone tell me why THIS woman is so important? Feeding tubes are removed every day in this country. People are denied needed medical treatment every day in this country. People die, who shouldn't, every day in this country. None of that is important but this one woman gets legislators in session in the middle of the night to try and subvert the law for what? An issue that is not their business in the first place.

I must convince myself that its simply...the same reason we get kept up to date on all of the celebrity trials, but not word boo on the poor guy who calls attention to a connection between crack in Watts, and the Iran Contra Afair. By the way...he blew his brains out. Twice.

Sumptins up!

This great assembly of law makers aint just thinking about this poor woman whose body is dead. She is not the only one.

There is a war going on.

Now watch my hand. You will notice that at no time my fingers ever leave my hand.

 

[CBulla]

Once again, can anyone tell me why THIS woman is so important? Feeding tubes are removed every day in this country. People are denied needed medical treatment every day in this country. People die, who shouldn't, every day in this country. None of that is important but this one woman gets legislators in session in the middle of the night to try and subvert the law for what? An issue that is not their business in the first place.

You've posed a very good question.

 

[dlndavid]

Just shoot her & those pesky guys in congress, end of story.

 

[H2Andy]

Just shoot her & those pesky guys in congress, end of story.

hey... could this be a.... TROLL???

 

[BIGSAGE136]

You've posed a very good question.

Colin. Dont drop the speedo man. It rocks!