 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Doc Farmer
LCDR
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 442
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:51 pm Post subject: Read The Law Congress Passed - Are Judges Breaking It? |
 |
|
| Quote: | "Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted."
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/bill31905.html |
Since the judges are refusing to examine new or exculpatory evidence (the de novo section of the law above) are they not in violation of the law?
_________________
Fat, Bald and Ugly - And PROUD Of It! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They ignored it just as these clods have been doing all along. (Current theory - The law, who cares, I am a judge and can do what I want.)
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Barbie2004
Commander
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 338
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is the part that is so frightening about "the Law"!!
I bet I have read thousands of court cases, and I have concluded that judges "rule" and "order" any way they want.
If the "facts" don't fit their conclusion, they just "interpret" those facts to fit whatever law they want.
If the "law" doesn't fit their conclusion, they just "interpret" the "law" to fit whatever they want.
Folks, this has been going on for years, its just that this case has made it so obvious even to "non-legal" types.
What's even more frighening, that we should take note of, is that these judges, in particular the Judge Greer and Federal District Judge Whittmore, told Congress, our elected officials and the President of the United States, and the Florida legislature, to "Go to HELL!!"
To think, we did all that work to keep sKerry out of office, and it really didn't matter, we have our unelected official running this country under Judicial Tyranny!
We need to DEMAND congressional investigation!
To answer your question, yes that Federal Judge blatently violated that law.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Farmer
LCDR
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 442
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Barbie2004 wrote: | This is the part that is so frightening about "the Law"!!
I bet I have read thousands of court cases, and I have concluded that judges "rule" and "order" any way they want.
If the "facts" don't fit their conclusion, they just "interpret" those facts to fit whatever law they want.
If the "law" doesn't fit their conclusion, they just "interpret" the "law" to fit whatever they want.
Folks, this has been going on for years, its just that this case has made it so obvious even to "non-legal" types.
What's even more frighening, that we should take note of, is that these judges, in particular the Judge Greer and Federal District Judge Whittmore, told Congress, our elected officials and the President of the United States, and the Florida legislature, to "Go to HELL!!"
To think, we did all that work to keep sKerry out of office, and it really didn't matter, we have our unelected official running this country under Judicial Tyranny!
We need to DEMAND congressional investigation!
To answer your question, yes that Federal Judge blatently violated that law.
|
Not just the first one, Barbie - ALL of the judges who failed to act on this law. Including SCOTUS.
_________________
Fat, Bald and Ugly - And PROUD Of It! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is time to remove life sustaining sustenance from an out-of-control activist judiciary...let the battle commence...
From Bill Kristol via Powerline... (emphasis mine)
| Quote: | "Evolving Standards of Decency"
"Evolving Standards of decency" saved Christopher Simmons's life; they weren't enough to save Terri Schiavo.
by William Kristol
The Weekly Standard
From the April 4, 2005 issue:Volume 010, Issue 27
THANK GOD FOR OUR JUDGES. (Oops! Sorry. No offense, your honors. I didn't mean to write "God." Or at least I didn't mean anything specific or exclusionary or sectarian or unconstitutional by writing "God." It's just an expression I occasionally use. It does go way back in U.S. history. I hope it's okay.)
Anyway. Thank God for our robed masters. If it weren't for them, Christopher Simmons might soon be executed. In September 1993, seven months shy of his 18th birthday, Simmons decided it would be interesting to kill someone. He told his buddies they could get away with it because they were still minors. He broke into the house of Shirley Crook in Jefferson County, Missouri, bound her hands and feet, drove her to a bridge, covered her face with tape, and threw her into the Meramec River, where she drowned. He confessed to the crime, and was sentenced to death according to the laws of Missouri.
Last month the Supreme Court saved Simmons's life. The citizens, legislators, and governor of Missouri (and those of 19 other states) had, it turned out, fallen grievously and unconstitutionally behind "the evolving standards of decency that mark a maturing society." Five justices decided that the Constitution prevented anyone under the age of 18 from being sentenced to death. So Christopher Simmons will live.
It appears, at this writing, that Terri Schiavo will not. In a series of decisions in Florida state courts, Circuit Judge George Greer and his colleagues have chosen to credit the claim of
Michael Schiavo that his wife long ago expressed a well-considered wish to be killed if she found herself in a disabled state. Of course, there is no reason to believe she ever seriously considered she might find herself in such a state. They have chosen to deny efforts by Terri Schiavo's mother and father to assume responsibility for their daughter's care. They have chosen to strike down legislation passed by the Florida legislature, and signed by the governor, to permit the governor to allow water and nutrition to be given to patients who leave no written directive, and to allow some recourse for family members who wish to challenge the withholding of nutrition and hydration.
Last week, federal judges chose to dismiss, out of hand, extraordinary legislation passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by the president, which asked the federal courts to take a fresh look at the case. The federal judges chose not to explain why "evolving standards of decency" might not allow Terri Schiavo to be kept alive until the case was argued in federal court. The judges assumed nothing new or meaningful would be learned from such an argument, or that the federal legislation might be found unconstitutional. The federal judges chose not to bother to explain why either might be the case.
So our judges deserve some criticism. But we should not be too harsh. For example, it would be wrong to suggest, as some conservatives have, that our judicial elite is systematically biased against "life." After all, they have saved the life of Christopher Simmons. It would be wrong to argue, as some critics have, that our judges systematically give too much weight to the husband's wishes in situations like Terri Schiavo's. After all, our judges have for three decades given husbands (or fathers) no standing at all to participate in the decision whether to kill their unborn children. It would be wrong to claim that our judges don't take seriously legislation passed by the elected representatives of the people. After all, our judges are committed to upholding the "rule of law"--though not, perhaps, the rule of actual laws passed by actual lawmakers. And it would be wrong to accuse our judges of being heartless. After all, Judges Carnes and Hull of the 11th U.S. Circuit told us, "We all have our own family, our own loved ones, and our own children."
So do we all. They deserve a judiciary that is respectful of democratic self-government and committed to a genuine constitutionalism. The Bush administration should nominate such judges, and Congress should confirm them. And the president and Congress should lead a serious national debate on the distinction between judicial independence and judicial arrogance, and on the difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy. After all, we are a "maturing society," as the Supreme Court has told us. Perhaps it is time, in mature reaction to this latest installment of what Hugh Hewitt has called a "robed charade," to rise up against our robed masters, and choose to govern ourselves. Call it Terri's revolution.
--William Kristol
The Weekly Standard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Barbie2004
Commander
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 338
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just ran into this:
| Quote: | November 14, 2003
Remove Dennis Kucinich's feeding tube!
by Ann Coulter
In the current battle over whether to remove the feeding tube from Florida woman Terri Schiavo, the basic positions are:
She is in a permanent vegetative state; no she's not.
She is unconscious and does not react to stimuli; yes she does.
She will never get any better; yes she will.
She would not have wanted to be kept on a feeding tube; you don't know that.
The only thing everyone seems to agree on is that the husband is creepy. Terri's parents are fighting like mad to keep Terri alive. The husband, Michael Schiavo, is living with another woman with whom he has one child and is expecting another. Yet he has mounted a monumental crusade to have Terri's feeding tube removed.
Terri is not brain-dead and requires no extraordinary means to be kept alive. She is breathing, her heart is pumping, her organs are functioning. All she needs is food and water. (Of course, all three are technically true of Kate Moss, too.) But her husband wants to starve her to death. As Larry King asked him, why not "walk away"?
That is the eternal mystery of this case. Assuming everything Michael says about Terri is true – she has no consciousness, she will never recover, and she would not want to live with feeding tubes – well, then, she's not in pain, bored, angry or upset. Dennis Kucinich has been in a persistent vegetative state for 20 years – how about not feeding him? Why is Michael Schiavo so obsessed with pulling Terri's feeding tube? Why can't he just walk away?
Michael's answer to Larry King was this: "Why should I, Larry? This is Terri's wish. This is Terri's choice." As King pointed out, Terri's alleged "wish" was not memorialized anywhere in writing, only in Michael's memory. Michael responded to this point by invoking the courts: "It's been decided for six years of litigation that this was Terri's wish."
I note that "six years of litigation" is not enough to end the lives of child-molesting serial killers on death row. The same people who want to kill Terri believe that death-row cases are never final, no matter how many courts and juries have spoken over how many decades.
Moreover, it's not as if court after court has heard testimony on Terri's wishes and have all unanimously agreed that Terri would have chosen death. One lone Florida circuit court judge, George Greer, credited Michael's testimony, finding "clear and convincing" evidence that Terri said she would not want to be kept alive on feeding tubes. Because Judge Greer was acting as the finder of fact, his finding is essentially unreviewable by any other court. Even the notorious Florida Supreme Court – which has a history of jumping in to try to save a dead man – refused to review the case.
Judge Greer's finding on Terri's wishes may be immune from legal review, but it's not immune from criticism. He's a finder of fact – he's not God.
A few years ago, Judge Greer found that Helene Ball McGee did not have reasonable cause to believe domestic violence was imminent and denied her an order of protection. Two weeks later, Mrs. McGee was stabbed to death by her husband. So judges can make mistakes.
Judge Greer's pivotal "finding of fact" in the Schiavo case determining a life-or-death issue is based on something Terri allegedly said after watching a TV show. Michael didn't know his wife was bulimic, but he distinctly remembered Terri's remarks about a TV show. (It was an episode of "Melrose Place," during which she said that Heather Locklear's shoes were "to die for.")
After watching "Bambi," I'm against deer hunting. Then I go out the next day and order venison. Maybe we could have a higher standard of proof before the government orders a woman to die.
Despite Michael's insistence that he has a vivid memory of Terri expressing her wishes regarding death, note this exchange on "Larry King Live":
KING: I have a 35-year-old daughter. I've never asked her this question. I don't know if she has a living will. I hope she does. But if she doesn't, I don't know the answer to the question. Because most 35-year-olds, I guess, don't talk about it.
SCHIAVO: Nobody talks about death, Larry.
Michael apparently forgot to add – except for that one night I remember so clearly, Larry, when my wife, Terri, talked to me about death and expressed her firmly held desire not to be kept alive on a feeding tube.
If you start making damning admissions on "Larry King Live" – with your lawyer sitting next to you, no less – you have a problem. Larry King can interview Louis Farrakhan and make him look like a charmer.
As even the New York Times admits, Michael did not recall Terri's clearly stated desire to be taken off life support until after the million-dollar settlement was paid, most of it going for Terri's medical costs – and the remainder to her husband.
What offhand comments might Terri have made if she had read in the Baltimore Sun about Rod Brandner, who indicated that he was coming out of a coma by squeezing his son's hand in response to questions less than two hours before his life support system was to be turned off?
Or what if she had read the Associated Press news story on Chris Trickle, who lost 5 percent of his brain when he was shot in the head, but later came out of a nine-month coma to breathe on his own, eat three meals a day, and tell his girlfriend he loved her?
What would Terri have said after hearing that Gregory Dygas' mother refused to believe the doctors' assurances that Gregory was brain-dead and should be taken off life support, and six months later watched as Gregory sat up, talked and watched television?
What offhand remarks might Terri have made after reading about Terry Wallis, the Canadian man who just last summer awoke from a 19-year coma?
Or how about that case in Minnesota last year where the guy who'd been in a coma for decades suddenly reappeared and ran for Senate? What was his name? Walter Mondale?
(Note for the record: I want heroic measures taken to keep me alive, and I demand the immediate arrest of anyone trying to remove my life support.)
In the absence of a living will, I would think the courts ought to be erring on the side of life. But short of that, couldn't we at least all agree that the courts should not defer to the pull-the-plug demands from anyone who:
1. expresses an unseemly enthusiasm for another person's death;
2. was the only person present when the incident leading to the persistent vegetative state occurred;
3. stands to make money off the person's death; or
4. is wearing a "W.W.C.V.B.D.?" (what would Claus von Bulow do?) bracelet? |
Can't get the link, but you can go to www.terrisfight.org and click on "Judges vs The Law" button.
How in the world is this man still on the bench??
What I don't understand is why didn't Terri's Parents Attorneys DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY???
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here in Pa. we have the case of Wesley Cook, aka Mumia. The same people so desirous of terminating Terri are defending this convicted and confessed copkiller and keeping him from his just fate despite the numerous legal appeals that have all been rejected. Further more this creep gets invitations to address College commencements (usually at ultra-liberal campuses), is an honorary citizen of Paris and other honoraria. This thug gets reprieve after reprieve after he shot a young police officer pointblank in the face and executed him while a young woman is condemned to die because she is an inconvenience to a non-husband who just wants her dead in spite of a family that she belongs to wanting to take her back in. This is about as twisted and nonsensical as it can get.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
