Hmm.

The bill was to give juris-my-dicktion (to steal a line from a movie) to a Federal court, instead of Florida circuit court.

The federal judge is reviewing it now.

SCOTUS has already said that they don't want to touch it.

I will laugh my f*cking ass off if the judge says,
"Well, this has been a very unusual circumstance, that this was even brought before me. My decision is the same as the last Florida court's decision: the husband has the final say. Michael, do you stand by your previous statements? Okay, then my judgement is, the feeding tube shall be removed and Terri Schiavo shall be allowed to expire."

I swear I will laugh my ass off.

Then what? Another emergency legislative session to force SCOTUS to take it up? Then what if SCOTUS tosses it, as well?

Dude. I thought it was supposed to be the DEMOCRATS that kept calling for a recount until they got the answer that they wanted, and the DEMOCRATS that flip-flopped. Oh, no, that's just Republicans playing the old childhood game of "I'm Rubber, You're Glue."

LincolnLogolas

Feral tards! Feral tards!! It's fun just to say that outloud.

Man, I seriously came close to spitting out a mouthful of red wine when I read that. Classic.

TheHungus:

I love the justification of the polls. The same people who decry the idiocy of the American people in previous unrelated polls (and elections, of course) now say "well, the people have spoken..."

And vice-versa. Ah, the beauty of polls and wingnuts' reaction to them.

Wraithbane

Well actually law student having recently done the relevant law in torts/medical negligence. That's not particularly helpful, though, because I don't care and I don't know what the issues are. I am definitely uninformed, but that's not as unfortunate as your situation, where you're uninformed, don't realise it, but are arrogant enough to consider your regurgitating-the-newsies-who-regurgitated-commentators-who-regurgitated-the-e xperts opinion as anything more than the chinese whispers that it is.

/this is boring, movies time!

2005-03-21 08:54:25 PM eraser8

I understand why judges are appointed for life, and I have no problem with that, but they do overstep their bounds quite often these days, and not every person who sees that is part of the right wing set.

I want judges to have the power that was intended by the founders, no more, and no less. Far too often, they declare laws unconstitutional without siting the constitution, simply because the laws conflict with their political opinions.

Prospero424:

Although I'm sure we would disagree on what, exactly, constitutes judicial "abuse".

Abuse is overturning laws without citing constitutional reasons. It was, in the past, used to keep slaves as slaves, denying equal rights, declaring rights that did not exist, and many other questionable rulings. Today, it's other issues which I will not get into here, since I don't want to be up all night in a flame war. =)

That's my personal take though, I can see how one would disagree.

I'm always glad to hear one's personal take presented in a polite manner. That's what true debate is all about.

clancifer:

/btw, it is the Dems who have politicized this issue -- trying to rejuvinate what little base is left of the party

How? Why? What? That's the most retarded thing I ever heard.


This issue is very simple.

(1) Extreme Pro-lifers want to keep her alive at a costs. They are part of the Republican base.

(2) The gut reaction of everyone is to keep her alive. It is an emotional issue in the direction of the Republican base.

How/Why are/is the Democrats using this?

That this guy is not so much acting as a guardian as he is God.

He has signed over custody of Terri to the courts. His only part in this anymore is TESTIMONY before court as to what her wishes would be. He has NO LEGAL POWER OVER HER. It is beyond simple.

UberNeuman:

faethe - what is it that the husband is going to gain by allowing this to go forth?

Control. This is not so much about the condition of his wife, as it is him being the one to determine the condition of his wife. Michael is the one who has full guardianship over Terri Schiavo, not the courts. Several years ago a guardian ad litem was assigned by the court to make a determination as to the status of Terri. This did not mean Michael Schiavo surrendered his guardianship over Terri. Governor Bush had another GAL assigned in 2003 to report back as to Terri's condition. The decision as to what happens to Terri Schiavo is ultimately her husbands - this is what the court keeps reaffirming.

Whoops! That should be 'cited' not 'sited'. As sharkinfested mentioned, "internal spellcheck is not one of my working parts". =)

First off, it's obvious these asshats are playing politics. Hmm yes, let's subpoena her to appear before Congress.

My guess is they already know they're going to lose this fight in Congress and are instead going for a compromise--which is actually their real goal. That way they can pretend the Democrats won whilst still reaping the benefits of any compromise, which will, of course, be in line with neo-conservative (nee Republican) ideology.

goddamhippie:

His only part in this anymore is TESTIMONY before court as to what her wishes would be. He has NO LEGAL POWER OVER HER.


You need to go and research that. If Michael Schiavo is not her guardian, then why is he able to ban her parents from entering the hospice? Hmmmm?

clancifer

/btw, it is the Dems who have politicized this issue -- trying to rejuvinate what little base is left of the party

Ya know, normally I like smacking at the left, but that is totally groundless....

duh

Weaver95: You mean property rights, environmental activist issues and drug laws?

I plead the 5th! =)

I guess you have to be in the bottom 30 percent in order to understand how functioning without a brain could be considered life.

"Most of the trouble in this world has been caused by folks who can't mind their own business, because they have no business of their own to mind, any more than a smallpox virus has." - William Burroughs

I think these 30% in favor of this and the 40% that think Saddam was involved with 9-11 should automatically lose their right to vote.

faethe:

Control. This is not so much about the condition of his wife, as it is him being the one to determine the condition of his wife.


Did you ever stop and think that maybe he loves his wife/ex-wife/whatever so much that he's willing to be demonized in order to act in her best interests as she stated to him? What if he is? What does he have to gain by her death? He's already broke. Do you know something about the man that I don't?

faethe - could you please throw a couple links my way so I can read about how all this is about is Michael Schiavo's need to control....

Congress can't extend federal court jurisdiction beyond the bounds of Article III. This "law" clearly does that. Unconstitutional on its face.

Weaver95:

2005-03-21 09:15:31 PM Weaver95 [TotalFark]

I plead the 5th! =)

Hell, you could write a book on environmentalist abuses of the court system alone. And the drug laws make me want to punch something.

Sue 'em.

In other news, 70% of Americans pick their nose and eat their boogers.

/coincidence?

There is not much I disagree with Bush on but he is wrong here. Let her be at peace.

eraser8

I don't need a lesson on federal jurisdiction from you. Rooker-Feldman prevented federal review. Congress has obviated that prohibition by passing this bill.

As I said, it was a bad idea. But, Congress has the authority to determine the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court (with only a couple of specific grants in the constitution). It (Congress) has been very circumspect in its exercise of the authority. This was an unfortunate exception.

This case will fade quickly from the scene after the poor woman has died.

Churnin Urn....Funk

I do not believe "usurpment" is a word. Perhaps "usurpation" was the word for which you were looking.

And, where IS the concept of the "sanctity of marriage" in this issue? What's with the symbolic giving away of the bride to the husband. Are they not assumed to be primary legal entities of each other?

If so, her parents have no standing. Hell, had he simply killed her all manslaughterly, he probably would be out by now. Erm, pretend I didn't just point that out.

eraser8:

Judges no more overstep their bounds today than they did at the beginning of the republic.

Isn't that what I said when I cited historical events?

Judges who do abuse their power can be removed.

When judges overstep their bounds, they are overturned by a higher court, if the country is lucky. Unless they commit a crime, judges are seldom removed from the bench.

Examples? How about reading in a right to an abortion, and the striking down of anti-abortion laws? I believe in a woman's right to choose, but I don't see that in the constitution, nor do I see a prohibition. What about gay-marriage laws (both pro and con), or striking down of sodomy laws? None of that is in the constitution. Such laws prohibiting such things are silly to me, but it's up to the legislature to decide these things, and the judges to interpret them, but not find rights that are not spelled out. I've seen judges strike down sodomy laws, and abortion prohibitions, and I've seen them enforce such laws when not on the books. Both types see those "rights" spelled out in the constitution, but really, there are no such rights. It's not even consistant. What about the "war on drugs"? If a woman has the "right to choose" what to do with her body, why can't a junkie have the "right to choose" to shoot up?

Laws follow the ever-changing will of the people, but "rights" should never change. There are plenty of examples, both right and left, where "rights" are given and taken away by judges that read too much into the constitution, stepping on the toes of the elected officials, even if those elected officials are making idiotic laws.

Also, I'd like to point out that I am not in favor of removing judges from the bench except in case of them commiting crimes or if they are incompetent, just that they overstep their bounds sometimes.

I'm tired. Goodnight. I'll read your response, though.

It's been nice talking to you.

BBanzai, I notice you didn't see fit to respond to my post of 2005-03-21 08:28:49 PM.
I bring it to your attention again.

Feel free to respond now.

Otherwise, feel free to chicken out and try to change the subject like you did in your Boobies immediately after.
In which case, PWN3D!

er, "boobies" should be you know what. Your first thing after at 2005-03-21 08:35:50 PM

"Thanks, Repubs. You just blew your 2006 congressional elections and 2008 presidential bid. Good job!"

You people talk about how the republicans are only pandering to their base by getting involved and then say that they're gonna lose that base in future elections...which is it? Or are you all just wishfull thinkers? Keep drinking that koolaid Mr Clarence Butterworth.

/the last bit was from a previous thread.
//coming to fark for a valid opinion is the same as going to Al Franken's website.

No one who stands to gain something financially should have the right to pull someone's tube. It's for her parents to decide, who do not have anything financially invested in her death.

Can you say political pawn, I know you can.

BillCosby: Sue 'em.

imagine if the aclu picked up his case.

the laughing fit i'd go thru would probably do enough brain damage i'd end up in the bunk next to terri.

sloshyj

No one who stands to gain something financially should have the right to pull someone's tube.

Well, in that case, you have no problem with her husband having that right.....the money is gone, try a little research.

Churnin Urn of Burnin Funk:

Did you ever stop and think that maybe he loves his wife/ex-wife/whatever so much that he's willing to be demonized in order to act in her best interests as she stated to him? What if he is? What does he have to gain by her death? He's already broke. Do you know something about the man that I don't?

Sure he loves his wife. He's a shiatty guardian. The two are not mutually exclusive things. Florida is notorious for putting ordinary people into extrodinary situations and expecting them to deal with it, regardless of how badly they perform. If he truly believed her last wish was not to 'wake up in a coffin' - the time to act on that was when she first entered the hospital. He did not. Instead, he goes on with therapy, goes forward with experimental treatments, and a lawsuit. Up until the resolution of that suit, he was convinced he was doing the right thing by rehabbing her. Directly after, he reverses his position. Some of you have stated before this is because he was in denial. No he wasn't. Irrevocable damage was the diagnosis at the outset. Improving her quality of life in the state she was in, was what he hoped to accomplish. She did show some improvement, but nothing miraculous. Like I said before, at one time, she was living at home with the Schiavo's, until they found her needs to much to deal with. At the end of the lawsuit, when he was awarded a large sum of money for the specific purpose of rehabilitating his wife (which is what the award was based on) he immediatley ceases her therapy, denies her antibiotics to treat her urinary tract infection, which went septic btw, and starts funnelling the money to lawyers in order to get her feeding tube yanked. How is this possible? It was not a structured settlement. It was left entirely up to his discretion as to what to do with the money.

sloshyj: No one who stands to gain something financially should have the right to pull someone's tube. It's for her parents to decide, who do not have anything financially invested in her death.

Don't know why I'm responding, since you're an obvious hit'n'run who posts a troll like that and flees without ever coming back to read the responses, but...

Michael Schiavo will not make a single penny from Terri's death. He does not stand to gain anything financially. There is no life insurance, there is no magic money, and he already turned down 11 million dollars that was offered to him.
The ones who stand to gain financially are the politicians who think this will help them get reelected. I agree, they should have no right to decide.

They probably just polled northeastern Yanks.