"Terri After Her Injury"
(terrisfight.org)
Yeah, "Husband". What kid of vegetable does this look like to you? Rutabaga, Broccoli, Asparagus?
C'mon "Husband". Answer you sleazy asshole!
| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| Judge Greer Losing It - Orders Florida Protective Services to Ignore State Law |
| 2005-03-24 |
| State Told Not to Enforce Law Protecting Terri Schiavo (CNSNews.com) - The Florida judge presiding over the Terri Schiavo case ordered the state agency charged with protecting vulnerable adults to make no attempt to take the brain-injured woman into protective custody late Wednesday. The order appears to be in direct contradiction to a state statute that requires the agency to act. Mayo Clinic neurologist Dr. William Cheshire -- who is also a member of the Florida's Adult Protective Services team -- said late Wednesday that Terri Schiavo "may have been misdiagnosed" by one court appointed doctor and two other physicians chosen by Michael Schiavo. Those three doctors declared Terri to be in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), but Cheshire said, based on his examination of Terri and review of her records, she is more likely in a minimally conscious state (MCS). The term is a new diagnostic description that has come into acceptance since Terri was last examined. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said the new information "raises serious concerns and warrants immediate action. "Terri is now going on her sixth day without food or water," Gov. Bush told reporters Wednesday afternoon. "It is imperative that she be stabilized so that the adult protective services team can fulfill their statutory duty and thoroughly review all the facts surrounding her case." One member of the media asked if the state Department of Children and Families (DCF) planned to take Terri Schiavo into protective custody, remove her from the hospice where she is being dehydrated and starved to death or try to reinsert her feeding and hydration tube. "We are looking at every potential opportunity to be of assistance," replied DCF Secretary Lucy Hadi. That response apparently prompted the attorney for Terri's estranged husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo, to contact Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge George Greer, requesting a court order barring the state from acting. Noted "right-to-die" attorney, author and activist George Felos argued during a court hearing later Wednesday that DCF had "no more power than ... a person walking down the street," to place Terri in protective custody. "Any action would be a violation of Mrs. Schiavo's constitutional right to refuse medical treatment. It would be a violation of her civil rights. It would be an assault, a battery, a trespass on her," Felos argued, following his assessment with a threat aimed at DCF officials, "and, should that occur and should that be attempted, we will hold those to the fullest extent of the law." But Florida statute 2004-Ch0415-Section-201051#0415.1051 seems to contradict Felos' claim. The statute states, "If it appears that the vulnerable adult ... is likely to incur a risk of death or serious physical injury if such person is not immediately removed from the premises, then the representative of the department shall transport or arrange for the transportation of the vulnerable adult to an appropriate medical or protective services facility in order to provide emergency protective services." Jennifer Lima-Smith, an attorney for the DCF, reminded Greer that the agency does not need his permission in advance to act. "The law allows the department to exercise both emergency protective services -- intervention and emergency removal -- either one or both," Lima-Smith told Greer. The statute also appears to specifically exempt DCF from an otherwise enforceable mandate to seek Michael Schiavo's permission to remove Terri. "If the vulnerable adult's caregiver or guardian is present, the protective investigator must seek the caregiver's or guardian's consent ... before the vulnerable adult may be removed from the premises," the law states, "unless the protective investigator suspects that the vulnerable adult's caregiver or guardian has caused the abuse, neglect, or exploitation." The only authorization or requirement for the involvement of the courts in an emergency intervention or removal comes after DCF has taken its action. "The department shall, within 24 hours after providing or arranging for emergency removal of the vulnerable adult, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, petition the court for an order authorizing emergency protective services." Nonetheless, Greer rebuked the agency, ordering it not to attempt to enforce the state law. "Since it appears imminent that the department is likely to do something in contravention of that rule of law, this court is going to grant the oral motion," Greer said. "DCF is hereby restrained from taking possession of Theresa Marie Schiavo or removing her from Hospice Woodside, administer (sic) nutrition or hydration artificially or otherwise interfere (sic) with this court's final judgment." I am declaring a coup d'etat. I am the King of Florida. Note: He has also ordered all county sheriffs to do everthing to block any movement. 1) What Happens if Jeb orders the State Police, or National Guard to move her? or - more ominous 2)What happens if W. sends federal marshalls to move her... That final portion of Greer's oral order seems to contradict yet another portion of the statute, entitled "Emergency medical treatment. "If, upon admission to a medical facility, it is the opinion of the medical staff that immediate medical treatment is necessary to prevent serious physical injury or death, and that such treatment does not violate a known health care advance directive prepared by the vulnerable adult," the statute states, "the medical facility may proceed with treatment to the vulnerable adult." Terri Schiavo has no such advance directive. At approximately 11:00 p.m. EST, attorneys for Terri Schiavo's parents filed a 40-plus page request for an emergency injunction with the U.S. Supreme Court. The pleading asks the justices to order Terri's feeding and hydration tube reinserted while the lower federal courts conduct a completely new trial of the facts in the case. That review was mandated by special legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush earlier in the week. Not much hope when "Justice" Kennedy will say in his denial, when it comes, "What would Europe Do?" |
| Posted by:BigEd |
| #72 AzCat, I wouldn't dare to voice a final judgement about Terri. But as long as a trial has not been thrown out it seems absurd to me not to issue a TRO, that actually ensures that a trial can take place and the person receives the necessary protection. I have seen such judicial behavior in Germany, but not in cases about death and life. You see frequent appeals to the German Highest Court, and often the Court refuses temporary orders because it either thinks the case won't have a decent chance to succeed or the damage done by refusing a TRO isn't big enough to put the case in jeopardy. In this case, it is the all important thing. Imagine a death penalty case in which a new trial is ordered but execution not stayed. I guess we'd see riots. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-24 11:59:05 PM |
| #71 If Congress has the right to order a de novo trial, wouldn't denying it constitute a "contempt of Congress?" This and related issues are precisely what the judiciary is avoiding by allowing T.Schiavo to die before her trial occurs. If she lives and the trial proceeds all of the relevant Constitutional issues will be litigated, appealed, and examined by thousands of legal scholars. That's not a circumstance the judiciary is comfortable with. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-03-24 11:51:47 PM |
| #70 TGA - He did, the pleadings filed under the new federal law trigger a series of actions leading to a trial. Generally what happens is that the initial pleading is filed then amended one or more times before the trial actually occurs. In the interim there may be one or more preliminary hearings before the actual trial (one such preliminary hearing and appeals therefrom is what we just saw) and the pleadings may be amended by the parties multiple times to properly assert all claims & rights before the trial begins. Hence the pleadings put the judiciary on notice that the plaintiff was demanding a trial and what just occurred was a normal preliminary pretrial hearing for a restraining order necessary to keep the issue in the case from becoming moot before the trial can be conducted. A loss in such a preliminary hearing does NOT vitiate the rights of the petitioner, nor does it indicate that the trial will not take place, it merely denies relief being granted before a trial is conducted. But suppose that's not the case, suppose that a procedural technicality exists whereby a separate and distinct demand for a trial is required. Suppose further that T.Schiavo's attorney dropped the ball and failed to meet the required technicalities. Our federal courts have "broad powers in equity" to do things in the interests of justice. When it suits their purposes, they can hang their hats on technicalities, ignore or finesse technicalities, grant the parties leave to amend filings to comply with technicalities, raise issues of their own volition (this is somewhat unusual), etc. Thus even if a fatal procedural technicality exists it will normally be easily corrected by the party with leave of the court or by the court itself. I don't understand how the federal courts can allow Terri to die before hearing her case. Their decisions smack of a turf war with the legislature and IMHO perserving judicial power is not reason enough to kill an innocent woman. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-03-24 11:44:11 PM |
| #69 AP, this "conflict of interests" with the appointed guardian is something that I find deeply troubling as well. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-24 11:33:51 PM |
| #68 Frank G, if Congress has the right to order a de novo trial, wouldn't denying it constitute a "contempt of Congress?" |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-24 11:28:48 PM |
| #67 Folks, I appreciate all of your heartfelt and well thought out comments. I believe that this case is thrown to the forefront because we as Americans have strayed from our path. It's kinda like slavery. Issues stay unresolved, then get to the forefront and become a focus. We are reaping the fruit of our moral relativism that was instilled into this country in the sixties. This is only one conflict, one focal point. There will be others, especially with the LLL losing at the ballot box. The only thing they have left is the judicial approach. If they lose that, then all they have left is mahem and guerilla war. This is a skirmish in a bigger battle. There will be more. I believe that Terri Schaivo's death will have a meaning, terrible as it is, as a focal point to this nation for facing some of its demons. On a lower level, looking at the case, per se, Terri was short changed from the beginning. Her husband basically abandoned her to his common law wife, now with a couple of children. The morality of that is not important. The issue is that Mr. Schaivo has a conflict of interest in being Terri's guardian and that he cannot represent Terri's interests and insure that her rights are safeguarded. That is the beginning of why this case stinks to high heaven. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-03-24 11:26:07 PM |
| #66 TGA - my understanding is that the De Novo petition was filed, especially in hopes of keeping status quo during th emeantime (tube in) . It appears to now be a judicial power play, letting Congress, Executive branch, know they have power |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-24 11:20:15 PM |
| #65 AzCat, if Congress mandated a new hearing and not just the right of the family to appeal at a federal court (an appeal than can be rejected), then I think the family's lawyer made a fatal mistake by not demanding a trial de novo BEFORE requesting the TRO. Or did he? |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-24 11:13:52 PM |
| #64 Sadly yes. We shouldn't lose sight of the procedural posture here: the law passed by Congress mandates a new hearing in a federal trial court. That hearing has NOT occurred, what occurred was merely a hearing requesting an order that Terri be kept alive long enough for the courts to hold the hearing mandated by Congress. In refusing to keep her alive long enough to hold that hearing, the federal courts have violated her right to due proces by actively working to frustrate the process mandated by Congress. To me that is the most chilling aspect of this situation, that the judiciary will kill an innocent woman by blatantly ignoring the law in order to avoid raising valid questions about the boundaries of the authority of Congress & the judiciary. If that doesn't chill anyone here to the core I'd suggest that you're not paying attention. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-03-24 11:06:24 PM |
| #63 true. A martyr to judicial power |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-24 10:36:15 PM |
| #62 Frank I'm afraid that the law ties the hands of both Jeb and W. The FL court's restraining order prohibiting Jeb from taking custody and the FL S.Ct.'s refusal this afternoon to overturn that order have handcuffed Jeb. If Terri is to live the solution will be extarlegal. The question now is whether morality or politics/legality is the prime mover in either Jeb or W's decision processes. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-03-24 10:33:14 PM |
| #61 Azcat - I'm afraid W can't, legally, but hoping there's a way. Good Easter weekend situation |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-24 10:21:56 PM |
| #60 I infer from his comments here that Jeb is not going to act. One potential actor has seemingly bowed out leaving only W with the authority to intervene. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-03-24 10:18:31 PM |
| #59 Dishman: precisely. We're going to have _his_ dictatorship or someone else's. He's going to chortle that even if we get someone else's, we'll still suffer. He hasn't figured out yet that if we become a society of strongmen instead of laws, low-level state judges are going to be some of the people with the least amount of freedom. Like in Orwell's _1984_, O'Brien didn't waste time persecuting the proles. He was too busy persecuting the party functionalities who were de jure in charge but de facto slave bureaucrats. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-03-24 9:01:12 PM |
| #58 Precisely my point Dishman, therefore I do believe we have a constitutional crisis brewing here if we can't find politicians with the spine to stand up to these tyrants. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2005-03-24 6:03:18 PM |
| #57 I have just read this petition against Judge Greer... If those allegations are true then there is indeed a major problem. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-24 5:45:24 PM |
| #56 It is inaccurate to say that all dr's who have examined her have reached the same conclusion. Here is an affidavit from a FAAN who examined her this month and concluded that the diagnosis was not properly supported. http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/Affidavit.pdf Here is an article that summarizes some more of the questions concerning the diagnosis: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp She may be very PVS, she is obviously very ill. As for taking an expert on cross: The experts offer opinions. You can (1) demonstrate the information underlying the opinion is inaccurate; and (2) demonstrate that other experts disagree with the opinion at issue. But, at the end, it is an opinion. Bad opinions often work: flat earth, earth center of solar system, spontaneous generation, et cetera. |
| Posted by: Kalchas 2005-03-24 5:43:07 PM |
| #55 Now.. THAT disturbs me... What Greer seems to be saying is that the courts hold ALL the power in this case and any like it. There are no checks-and-balances... |
| Posted by: Dishman 2005-03-24 5:41:10 PM |
| #54 So basically Judge Greer is saying that separation of powers means he can kill her. I wonder what this is going to mean to this country. Everyone's decrying the actions at the national level as the "death of Federalism." George Wallace said he was defending "States' Rights" when he tried to keep blacks from enrolling at the University of Alabama. The end result... States' Rights died in this country for a couple generations, and maybe for good. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-03-24 5:35:15 PM |
| #53 "The requested intervention ... appears to be brought for the purpose of circumventing the courts' final judgment and order setting the removal date in violation of the separate of powers doctorate," This is from So-Called Judge Greer's Non-Opinion. I don't care about the fact that might say I was wrong. I have too much of an ego to overrule myself... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-24 5:25:28 PM |
| #52 Glad you made it ANON. Sounds pretty rough. I just sympathize (sp?) with the parents in this case. I watched my 4 year old son go through chemo/radiation 10 years ago, and didn't think he would make it out. I guess that is why this case is hitting me so hard. |
| Posted by: Mort 2005-03-24 5:24:50 PM |
| #51 #48, Second Mr. Shipman's motion... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-24 5:18:41 PM |
| #50 Oh I see, well this mishap actually occurred to quite a few Americans :-) |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-24 5:18:20 PM |
| #49 Sorry, #44 was me. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-03-24 5:18:03 PM |
| #48 TGA, my comment was somewhat simpler than you suppose... you're an American, just born in a different country. :) |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-03-24 5:15:37 PM |
| #47 I think it's pretty important to know who is behind the Terri Schiavo and why, at this link . This is social deconstruction in pure form, and the case illustrates the foundations behind the movement in favor of changing the fabric of American society. Another interesting article at this link. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2005-03-24 5:05:59 PM |
| #46 Mort..just to add something Last year I had a close one..Liver and kidney failure..When I was admitted to the hospital I was so ill that I accepted death without fear. (just wanted an end to the misery) If it weren't for our Lord, Drs., my family and the donor I would have been history for sure. But even after weeks in intensive care with no food (except tube/IV), the only thing I desired was water. (besides getting well) This is why I don't understand the decision to cut off water? Starving doesn't hurt (I lost 105 lbs. muscle) but dehydration is no fun..(my intake of water was restricted med/reasons) I remember craving water more than anything else. I can't imagine what it would be like spending years in a hospital bed, my heart goes out to her. God bless her. |
| Posted by: ANON 2005-03-24 5:05:32 PM |
| #45 Shipman, I am 79, so in a hopeless situation the hospital doctors would quietly pull the plug with the consent of the family. The family usually opts for "no life prolonging measures". But they have no legal right to enforce it. Doctors have much more power in that case than the patient. They are not forced to respect my will, even if it's stated clearly in a legal deposition. But they usually do. No court could force them to pull the tube. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-24 4:55:13 PM |
| #44 My wife died three years ago of ovarian cancer (technically). She got to the point where the tumor had completely blocked her intestines and could not even drink water. She had a port put in place in her jugular vein (I believe) and had all nourishment and liquid done that way. She was also a diabetic. She was not going to get better, only slowly get worse. The pain was very bad and the morphine pump helped but it got to the point even that didn't help much. She quit taking her insulin and repeatedly disconnected and finally cut up the feeding tube. I could not get her to take the insulin, she said she had had enough. She lasted 3 days from when she refused the insulin so she actually didn't die from the cancer but from the effects of not taking the insulin. She was at home and as hard as it was I had to accept her wish to go on her own terms. This woman doesn't seem to be afforded that. There are a lot of issues here and I don't pretend to know them all. This case is different from Elizabeth's in that Terri can't decide for herself. She is not on life support and does seem to have some response to stimuli so I would say let her live on. Life is too precious to toy with. |
| Posted by: Elmerdulla Fudlulla 2005-03-24 4:52:36 PM |
| #43 "Terri After Her Injury" (terrisfight.org) Yeah, "Husband". What kid of vegetable does this look like to you? Rutabaga, Broccoli, Asparagus? C'mon "Husband". Answer you sleazy asshole! |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-24 4:52:22 PM |
| #42 "Will Congress stand for it?" TGA, Will the American people stand for it? The answer is no. If Terri dies, the Demoncrats will burn. |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-03-24 4:40:45 PM |
| #41 How'd TGA end up in Germany? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-03-24 4:38:13 PM |
| #40 I know all too well how precious life is. I have clinged to my life in the most miserable situations and I have witnessed others doing the same. We must be very careful with judging life as "not worth living". I don't know whether judges have been "arrogant" in this case. They did follow the law and proper legal procedures. Or were serious doubts about the husband's behavior raised earlier in court? (In that case, "in dubio pro vita" should have prevailed. Will Congress stand for it? |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-24 4:32:00 PM |
| #39 Most true TGA, it could. And, perhaps it will. This is just one fight. Terri's life certainly has value at least for exposing the arrogance of certain judges. Yes, the procudure is legal, but was it exercised correctly? |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2005-03-24 4:19:35 PM |
| #38 It is human instinct to hang on tooth and nail to life for however long as possible. Most of us SAY that if we made it to 95 years old, we'd die happy. That is until we turn 94 and then 95 doesn't seem so far off. This woman's death will most certainly be caused by unnatural causes. Speaking as a parent, which a lot of us on here undoubtedly are, I would unhesitatingly spend the rest of my days caring for one of my children in the same shape as Mrs. Schiavo. Her parents seem quite willing to do that in this case. In the absence of any positive evidence, and based strictly on hearsay, I cannot believe that this is happening in these the United States of 2005. It is just criminal. |
| Posted by: Mort 2005-03-24 4:14:00 PM |
| #37 Rex Mundi, from what I know such a case wouldn't be possible in Germany. The removal of the tube would qualify as (illegal) euthanasia, unless the patient were in a terminal state (means he would die very shortly anyway at this is done to make his death easier and merciful. Which certainly isn't the case with Terri. She has lived 15 years in this situation and maybe she could live another 15 years with that. So yes, it's a very problematic case. But obviously the procedure is legal. The only solution I see is that Congress makes a law prohibiting the removal of alimentation as long as the patient is not terminally ill. It could be done today. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-24 4:11:18 PM |
| #36 There may be a good time and place for that, but I just don't see this poor shell of what was once a woman being the case that justifies it. I dunno, I think the chance to stop state sanctioned muder just may be. TGA, there is no evidence, NONE, one way or the other regarding Terri's wishes. What's scary here is the willingness of Judge Greer to accept at face value the husbands word of what her wishes are when it means certain death for a US citizen. This entire case has been handled very poorly by all parties. Plenty of guilt to go around...we're all sullied by this. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2005-03-24 4:02:57 PM |
| #35 I should add one thing: IF substantial evidence comes up after res iudicata, of course the courts must step in again. That would be the same in death penalty cases. Removing the tube and starving a person to death sounds barbaric and cruel, but doctors state that any discomfort a patient might have is taken care of. Cutting off a leg, operating a heart etc. sounds extremly cruel as well but if the person is unconscious and can't feel anything, it is not. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-24 3:56:53 PM |
| #34 Whittemore has granted another hearing for 6:00 PM EST. What is this all about? I've got Hannity streaming, and it is odd. I thought this guy already said "NO". Now he wants to hear new arguements... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-24 3:46:38 PM |
| #33 I mean, come on people - no EEG means no brain activity. One question: If an EEG indicates no brain activity, should not the person being tested exhibit no reaction of any kind? |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-03-24 3:38:09 PM |
| #32 I believe she's in a PVS (no doctor who has actually examined her has ever concluded otherwise) and that she has no hope of recovery. But this is not a DNR, or a decision to forego extraordinary measures. They're going to starve/dehydrate to death a physically functional human being. You can't do that to a dog. This is murder, pure and simple. The fact that the victim doesn't know it doesn't reduce the shame of it a bit. |
| Posted by: VAMark 2005-03-24 3:36:59 PM |
| #31 Well, I've got my flameproof jacket on, so here goes .... I suspect Michael Schaivo did indeed make sure his wife wouldn't get the therapy and stimulation that might have helped her after her accident. I'm also pretty sure that at this point it's highly unlikely that there is anything left of Terri as a person in there, either because of the original accident or because of neglect since then. I mean, come on people - no EEG means no brain activity. I really dislike how this case has played out. The husband is a greedy jerk, the family understandably grieving and the woman has suffered a tragic fate. But nothing is going to make things better for her now, except perhaps giving her water to make death easier. And the precedent of the executive branch stepping in where the courts have ruled is a very very dangerous one. There may be a good time and place for that, but I just don't see this poor shell of what was once a woman being the case that justifies it. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-03-24 3:30:10 PM |
| #30 It's hard to keep personal emotions away from this case. I'm still trying to grab it. From what I understand, all court rulings are based on two basic questions: 1) Is Terri in a PVS? 2) What is (or rather was) her wish in such a case? If she is and if in such a case she didn't want to be kept in that state, she has the right to die and the courts should enforce her will. All specialists, who examined her, some over lengthy periods of time, have stated at court that Terri is indeed in a PVS, and the courts have believed them and ruled this way. So, did she want her PVS to be terminated? She can't tell us, but if I understand it right, the husband is (by law) the person who makes decisions for her, and if Terri did tell him that in such a case she would not want to live, I consider it the husband's duty to fulfil her wishes. The courts have found no reason not to believe what the husband says about Terri's wishes, and from what I read he isn't the only one Terri told about her wishes. The parents have never been able to show that Terri wished something else. They only assume what Terri as a Catholic and listening to a speech the Pope gave later might have wished. That's not good enough. Now a lot of things against the husband have been brought up after res iudicata. He has been offered a million dollars if he just let go, so that doesn't speak for financial interests in having Terri die. The 11th hour allegations of those nursery assistants are a bit questionable. If they tolerated such abusive behavior I have some doubts about their work ethics. If they feared for their job that's not good enough. That they did not even speak up after they left their job is very dubious. Also, I don't see, how that last minute "specialist", who in an hour and after watching two video clips came to his conclusions, can seriously put all previous diagnosis in question, especially given his affiliations which may make him partisan. As for the "custody case": Terri is not an unprotected helpless human being. She has had every legal protection possible, her case has been extensively reviewed. The only reason to take her into Jeb's custody would be to defy the explicit court order, and that's a contempt of court the judge has a right to prevent. I know many of this sounds cold and unemotional. Believe me, I'm not. I cannot exclude a 100% that Terri did not get a fair dealing. But in that she would hardly be the only person. There is a time when all legal options have been exhausted. Americans don't question this when it comes to the death penalty. Scott Peterson has been sentenced to death on circumstantial evidence. He is probably guilty, but would you bet your fortune on it? Now, when he has exhausted all legal options, do you expect George Bush to make a "Lex Peterson" and make federal courts review his case "de novo"? And if the federal courts rule against Scott and the Supreme Court (again) refuses to consider his case, do you expect Arnold Schwarzenegger to step in in Scott's favor and take him into protectice custody to save him from execution, just because some expert tells Arnie that Scott "might" be innocent and not everything has been considered in his case? The law can suck sometimes, for sure. There is a possibility that Terri becomes a victime of the law, which would be sad. But this can happen again tomorrow with an innocent person who receives the death penalty. If life trumpets everything and even the remotest possibility exists that this principle is violated by law, you should not have the death penalty. On a personal level I'm very torn. I wouldn't want to be the judge in that case. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-24 3:24:50 PM |
| #29 The Bush Bros need to act in the next couple of hours... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-24 2:58:12 PM |
| #28 More info at this link . It's unbelievable how totally corrupt the background story on these lawyers, judges, and other players really is. Blew my mind. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2005-03-24 2:57:38 PM |
| #27 If W sends in federal marshals we will then have a full-fledged constitutional crisis. No worse than sending the National Guard to ensure people get to attend the university of their choice, or to enforce busing. I'm still not entirely sure what's right or wrong in this case, but I definitely know that Greer and Whittemore need to be removed from the bench. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-03-24 2:46:58 PM |
| #26 Impeach the SOB. He is not the law. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2005-03-24 2:39:27 PM |
| #25 AzCat: you are probably right regarding Congress' taking action given their absolute lack of spine in the face of political considerations- but it certainly didn't stop Clinton from stepping in and voiding state court decisions in the Elian case. Here, the Congress crafted legisationi, the POTUS signed it into law, and judge Greer promptly used that piece of leglislation to wipe his @$$. This is most definitely a turf war...one that needs to be fought. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2005-03-24 2:33:31 PM |
| #24 FOX NEWS:Florida judge won’t hear Gov. Jeb Bush's arguments Greer Refuses Reichfuhrer won't even hear Jeb's arguements of abuse? Jeb has to act now. Anyone out there MUST investigate Greer's background thouroughly This SMELLS If Jeb thinks he has the authority, why doesn't he move, or is the press confrence of yesterday a lot of flatulance? |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-24 2:30:54 PM |
| #23 You can definitely find an expert to say anything you want. Just because they will say what you want does not often mean it's worth the paper it's written on, let alone the expert's fee. A competent attorney facing an expert serving up BS can, with adequate preparation, expose the BS'ing and exact alot of admissions. If a party's case has merit, a competent attorney can often support a large portion of their position by slowly and carefully cross examining the opponent's "expert" but it only works well if you've properly researched and prepared the process. |
| Posted by: Tkat 2005-03-24 2:03:23 PM |
| #22 Rush is depressing, but may be sadly accurate. Comparing this to Reno's invasion of Waco or Elian's Family was done because she knew that the courts wouldn't touch her as a liberal. However, if Jeb tries a rescue, the courts will come after him because he is not a liberal... But that is exactly why he must act, because in all that controversy, there will be light thrown on all the issues, and whatever they do to Jeb, can't cover over the new information I believe will be found out... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-24 1:54:27 PM |
| #21 Here is how judges make decisions: When it comes to ordinary business disputes, they tend to "follow the law". However, even then the real process takes place. The real (most common) process: A judge first decides on a position (who wins/loses). Then the judge works backwards from the decision. The reasoning is result-oriented. Any decision can be supported using existing law. The law contains both general rules and exceptions which swallow the general rules. Trial court judges, sitting without a jury, have the additional advantage of "weighing the evidence'. They can decide that one story is more credible than another. When the trial court judge makes that determination, it becomes the "truth". The appellate courts are bound by those determinations (in most matters). It should be noted that appellate courts, especially supreme courts, are not above actually making up facts. I have personally received the advantage and the detriment of "new" facts. We read opinions to find out what "actually happened!" It's usually one or two facts. In short, it is a rather sloppy, often fictitious process. Final point: That is why it matters who acts as the lawyer. A better lawyer can tell a better story, which fits the judge's prejudice. The story is then supported by appropriate "authorities". Next final point: "Expert" witnesses can be found to say anything. That is why you need to tell your expert who you represent and what you want to prove. The expert fills-in the rest. |
| Posted by: Kalchas 2005-03-24 1:49:34 PM |
| #20 No disagreement with your conclusions Rex but I'm not at all certain that there's solid precedent under which Congress can step in where a matter has been completely adjudicated by the state courts, later remove the matter to the federal judiciary, and order that the federal judiciary then conduct a new trial completely ignoring all previous findings in the state courts. IMHO avoidance of this new expansion of federal legislative power is a big reason that the federal district court read the new statute extremely narrowly and concluded that Congress had required only a review of procedural due process in the state courts. It’s a turf war but it’s rooted in a potentially nasty constitutional conflict that the courts can avoid by merely allowing Terri Schiavo to die. It will be extremely inconvenient for them if W or Jeb steps in and saves her. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-03-24 1:27:43 PM |
| #19 BigEd has a point. Jeb better have good and up to date medical information or else do it now otherwise it'll be the worst of both worlds. |
| Posted by: Tkat 2005-03-24 1:09:04 PM |
#18  All branches of government are equal, but some are more equal than others. Who's the fat white one on the right? George Greer or Anthony Kennedy? |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-24 12:57:19 PM |
| #17 Ann Coulter has some very cogent remarks today! |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-24 12:47:29 PM |
| #16 In regards to the exercise of Congressional power to overrule state adjudications - there is already accepted precedant, and it exactly the duty of the Fed to step in when individual rights under the Constitutiion are involved. I see the judges here as acting with extreme arrogance in this matter following the actions of the Congress - they felt their powers were being impinged upon and reacted by throwing a hissy fit, Agreed BigEd, Jeb's got to step up and show some spine. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2005-03-24 12:37:23 PM |
| #15 Why is JEb repetitioning the idiot judge? This judge is now being more driven by ego, and isn't going to budge. What is the good in that? If he does not act unilaterally, he is in deep shit worse than if he does... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-24 12:29:07 PM |
| #14 "If the vulnerable adult’s caregiver or guardian is present, the protective investigator must seek the caregiver’s or guardian’s consent ... before the vulnerable adult may be removed from the premises," the law states, "unless the protective investigator suspects that the vulnerable adult’s caregiver or guardian has caused the abuse, neglect, or exploitation." |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2005-03-24 12:17:02 PM |
| #13 Send comments to Jeb Bush: jeb.bush@myflorida.com or to Adult Protective Services: dcf-osc@dcf.state.fl.us |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2005-03-24 12:15:36 PM |
| #12 APS should carry out their task, and let Greer try to enforce his decision. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-03-24 12:14:33 PM |
| #11 Oddly enough if you could ask the private opinion of the federal judges that have ruled on this matter in recent days you'd very likely learn that their rulings were bound up in a perception that they were preventing a constitutional crisis by avoiding the new exercise of Congressional power to reach down and overrule final state court adjudications in this, and presumably similar, matters. If W sends in federal marshals we will then have a full-fledged constitutional crisis. Jeb can avert that by acting but he'll incur the wrath of the federal judiciary for doing so and that will be ugly though not as ugly as the outcome if no action is taken. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-03-24 12:10:41 PM |
| #10 I'm afraid we are reaping what was sown with the 60's radical movement vis-a-vis the judges. It is also my opinion that there are no more pompous SOB's in the world than judges. It's our own fault. We have all failed Mrs. Schiavo. |
| Posted by: Mort 2005-03-24 12:10:36 PM |
| #9 OK if this is how it is, then we need to formally apologize and make monetary restitution to the families of all the Nazi doctors we hung for doing just the same thing. Horst Wessel indeed. It is clear that this country is in the midst of a serious constitutional crises. I was brought up on the idea of checks an balances. It's totally failed as there are none on the black robed tyrants. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2005-03-24 12:02:22 PM |
| #8 Let's hope so and let's hope it happens in the next few hours. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-03-24 11:56:39 AM |
| #7 AzCat-Jeb may be up to something. A so-called hospital supposedly tipped off the attorney Felos, "husband" 's attorney that they were expecting an "admission" I think "W" brings in the marshalls, and puts her on a hospital/clinic on a military base. Hey "Judge" - Try to get in there! |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-24 11:51:11 AM |
| #6 Judge Greer also ruled that DCF will not be granted access to court records he sealed in this case that might tend to demonstrate that Terri Schiavo was the victim of abuse. Barring the highly unlikely intervention of a FL appellate court, there exists only one proper course of action and only two potential actors with the power to execute it. We shall see whether the Bush brothers' faith is genuine or a mere prop held forth for the sake of political expedience. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-03-24 11:46:18 AM |
| #5 Der Florider Fuhrer Greer won't unseal medical records for view by Florida Protective Services to examine. Lovely. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-24 11:28:17 AM |
| #4 At this point I would normally insert something to satarize the bad people in this case. However the insert of an alternarive version "Horst Wesel Leid", the Nazi Anthem of Germany 1933-1945, substituting references to Hitler and Germany with so-called Judge Greer and his courtroom would be in bad taste, and offensive to anyone Jewish... But I can't help the idea crossing my mind... |
| Posted by: Ogeretla 2005 2005-03-24 11:26:22 AM |
| #3 Why is it that the gummint can remove children from the custody of their parents but they can't remove this women from her husband's? |
| Posted by: BH 2005-03-24 11:00:21 AM |
| #2 Let's pray they save her. |
| Posted by: R 2005-03-24 10:58:23 AM |
| #1 Drudge flash. Kennedy denies appeal. Its up to Jeb. Does he have the balls to challenge "Judge" Greer? |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-24 10:57:23 AM |