Article

2005-03-26 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Excuse the Broken Record - Terri Schiavo

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-26 12:52:48 AM|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Ed- This whole situation is a legal nightmare
and a personal, emotional disaster for the family memeber's and Terri husband----HE could CARE LESS!

This has really created a slippery slope in the arena of Medical Ethics and Law class.

After Terri passes on- there will be criminal charges filed against many parties!!!

Andrea Jackson

Posted by Andrea 2005-03-26 12:28:11 PM|| 2005-03-26 12:28:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Andrea - I hope the florida starts with an investigation of this, and files impeachment proceedings against the "Judge".

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-26 12:41:12 PM|| 2005-03-26 12:41:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 There is ânothing new under the sun.â I see this kind of judicial arrogance and sleaziness all the time -- rarely (but not never) does it end up costing someone their life. Given that this kind of judicial excess goes on so often, I seriously doubt that the Founders of this nation were unaware of the potential for rule by judicial tyranny. The Founders certainly knew about the potential for judicial arrogance and abuse (e.g., recall the star chambers that were part of the reason the colonies sought independence in the first place).

The answers about how to stop what is going on in Florida could not be more clear, and the power to stop what is going on in Florida does not reside in the Executive Branch (e.g., Governor Bush).

WHAT GOVERNOR BUSH COULD DO IS TO CONVENE THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE IN EMERGENCY SESSION TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM.

The check on the Judiciary by the Executive Branch is only: (1) to use the âbully pulpit,â (2) to convene the Legislature to address an emergency, and (3) to appoint judges (with the advice and consent of the Legislature). It is the Legislature that has the power to rein in the Judiciary by passing new laws and/or amending a constitution in response to judicial rulings. Further, the Legislature can impeach a judge who has crossed the line or is otherwise failing to show the proper judicial temperament.

THE LEGISLATURE OF FLORIDA COULD STOP THE SUFFERING OF TERRI SCHIAVO TODAY!

Posted by cingold 2005-03-26 12:48:30 PM|| 2005-03-26 12:48:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 After appeal No. 7734 was denied today, only extraordinary steps of intervention will save Terri Schaivo's life. Like I said on earlier posts, the deliberate starvation and denial of water to Terri would be a felony cruelty to animals charge if you did it to a dog. It would be also cruel and unusual punishment if it was done to a criminal on death row. After Terri dies, IMHO this case should be viewed as a denial of civil rights of Terri. In that case, Federal Marshalls should descend upon sh*thole county, Florida and seize all court records and evidence. Then it should be turned over to the Justice Dept Civil Rights division and the judge and his cohorts be prosecuted for denying this helpless victim her civil rights.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2005-03-26 2:25:18 PM|| 2005-03-26 2:25:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 BIG ED, CINGOLD, ALASKA PAUL Yes, who is protecting Terri's Civil Rights?? Can you imagine what the case sets as legal presidence?

WHAT A SLIPPERY SLOPE.***

What do you think about the so called husband?
Is that Saten or what?

Happy Easter**

Andrea Jackson

Posted by andrea Jackson 2005-03-26 2:41:44 PM|| 2005-03-26 2:41:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Florida Elections
ENTER AS FOLLOWS

In case ther are any doubters, like "Wierd Al", e.g.
I do not want to see violence. I hope not many folks outside the hospice are aware of this...

But If we all mail/FAX the Florida Legislature with the printout of the results. They can hopefully be encouraged to begin impeachment proceedings against Bozo Greer...

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-26 2:51:35 PM|| 2005-03-26 2:51:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Should be charges of attempted murder - and if she dies - premeditated murder.

but I'm just some fool who beleaves in right and wrong.

Posted by CrazyFool 2005-03-26 3:25:25 PM|| 2005-03-26 3:25:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 After Terri dies, IMHO this case should be viewed as a denial of civil rights of Terri.

After all that has gone on, it seems pretty evident that the inevitable is going to come to pass. That having been said, IMO people should drop the legal efforts to reattach the feeding tube and concentrate on what to do after she dies. An autopsy should definitely be on that list. Grieve for her when the time comes, then take care of what needs taking care of afterward.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-03-26 4:21:02 PM|| 2005-03-26 4:21:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 according to his atty, who just visited her, she's looking beautiful, just glowing. Riiggghhhhtt.....I wonder if the atty would choose this way to die?

Posted by Frank G 2005-03-26 4:24:14 PM|| 2005-03-26 4:24:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Let's just say for argument's sake that Michael Schiavo is correct and Terri would have taken a "do not resuscitate" position. Would she have said "I'd prefer a slow, lingering death by dehydration and starvation", or would she have preferred to be put out of her misery with painkillers and lethal injection? Not likely the slow, lingering death by dehydration and starvation.

So the judges are treating innocent Terri in a way that they would never treat a condemned serial killer. They are choosing cruel and unusual punishment. And the doctors involved are choosing to violate their Hippocratic Oaths and commit murder and malpractice. Those judges and doctors are murderers and the police involved in securing the crime site are accomplices. Nazi concentration camp behavior. What a disgusting, shameful mess. They may as well just drive a few spikes through her wrists.

Posted by Tom 2005-03-26 4:54:04 PM|| 2005-03-26 4:54:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 according to his atty, who just visited her, she's looking beautiful, just glowing.

And, he never realized a mere $250.00 campaign thank you money contribution would go so far!

That judge must have no life...

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-26 4:59:15 PM|| 2005-03-26 4:59:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Im my opinion this whole affair has been a power strugle between the judiciary branch and the legislative branch. This judge ignored a law passed by both houses of Congress. He has , it seems to me, placed himself as the supreme "law of the land". This sets a very dangerous precedent. I think euthanasia of is not far off.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2005-03-26 7:58:25 PM|| 2005-03-26 7:58:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Realistically, its too late for Terri.

I pray for her soul and her family. And I pray for Judge Greer, the willing executioner.

The big problem here is this judge has a judicial record of "stubborness" - i.e. when ne feels he has enough facts, he makes a judgement and NEVER changes it.

The problem is that he did NOT have all the facts - the deck was stacked and he REFUSED to see any information to the contrary of the death-advocates hired by Michael Schiavo. This screams ouut to anyone that looks at the case with ALL the opinions in from the top brian injusry neuroscientists, including a Nobel Prize nominee who examined her and disagreed with the PVS diagnosis but whose testimony was disallowed. No MRI, no PET scan - which are considered basic tools in diagnosis of PVS - as one neuroscientist said "its criminal" that these were not done. Judge Greer never even visited her, and he was supposed to be in the role of her guardian. Never visited her in the hospital. Not once! What kind of guardian is that?

Mr Shciavo refused for her to have ANY treatment, to hasten her decay. They even had to get a court order to force Greer and Mr Schiavo to allow treatment of a bladder infection with antibiotics. And now they endanger her soul by denying her a priest and last rites, final viaticum. These 2 men are evil in their acts.

Terri's story is one of abuse and neglect at the hands of a man who left her for another woman long ago, and a judge who was to arrogant to accept that hey might have erred and might not have had all the facts - and refused to reconsider.

Judicial arrogance, in its most primal form, is what killed Terri Chiavo, in cooperation with an abusive ex-husband who wanted her to die.

For "Judge" Greer if I could talk to him:

Surley you must realize that the great JUDGE will judge us all for the final time, and you as a (alleged) Christian know this. He will judge you. Are you prepared to face Him with this mark on your soul?

You will die the eternal death, if you goes to your earthly death unrepentant for your prideful and arrogant murder of Terri Schiavo, using the court to enforce your & Michael Schiavo's brutal sentence from your misguided will. You are no more innocent than were the camp commanders in Dachau. After all, they were "just following the law", and refused to listen to conscience and see the contrary evidence before their eyes. Hell has a special place for you Judge Greer, right next to the SS unless you change.

Come clean Judge Greer - admit you were wrong, confess your sin to God, ask for forgivness for the wrong you know you have done: God's capacity to forgive exceeds even your capability to sin.

Its your choice. Ask God to help you make the right decision. You've made far too many of the wrong decisions to get yourself to the point where you are ordering the state to starve and dehydrate to death a human who would otherwise live.

As a Baptist, you shoudl know your know your Bible: how will you respond to God when he asks you (as is said in the Book of Saint Matthew):

Then He will also say to those on His left,

'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for

I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat;

I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;

I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'

"Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'

"Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'

"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Its all anyone needs to do: be gennuinely sorry, confess to God, ask forgiveness, do a true penance and make restitution as best you can - then you will be cleansed of this death mark on your soul.

Or rot in hell for eternity.

Your choice, "Judge" Greer.

Posted by OldSpook 2005-03-26 8:26:44 PM|| 2005-03-26 8:26:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Old Spook, one allegation I heard that both Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer are affiliated with Scientology. Any truth to this?

That would explain a lot. It's not my reading though that the husband didn't do anything to better her state BEFORE the financial settlement.

This might also explain a lot.

But I must confess there is so much hearsay and allegations flying around that it's hard to make up your mind. And Judge Greer isn't the only one who ruled over the case. With everything we heard these days you should expect the US Supreme Court to pay a bit more attention to the case?

They HAVE overruled Florida judges before now haven't they?

Posted by True German Ally 2005-03-26 9:02:06 PM|| 2005-03-26 9:02:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 TGA,

I don't know about M.Schiavo or Greer, but I understand that Felos -- the death loving atty -- is a scientologist and believes he can telepathically divine whether unconscious people want to die . . .

As for the U.S. Supreme Court, they took on the 2000 election issue because of it's broad impact on numerous people's voting rights. They tend to stay out of state police power/public welfare issues that only impact one person, regardless of federal rights issues. THE TRUE BODY THAT REINS IN THE JUDGES IS THE LEGISLATURE. In particular, the Florida legislature is the one governmental body best situated to act, and it is not doing what it can and should right now.

Posted by cingold 2005-03-26 9:20:23 PM|| 2005-03-26 9:20:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 cingold, since Congress ordered a de novo trial at a federal court, shouldn't Supreme Court hear an appeal when this law Congress just made is flatly ignored by the respective Florida court (refusing a TRO equals ignoring)?

Posted by True German Ally 2005-03-26 9:24:02 PM|| 2005-03-26 9:24:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Thanks, Old Spook. Somebody needed to say it.

I'm amazed that Greer, in his arrogance, has gone to the lengths he's gone in violating this woman's rights. His latest interference in the exercise of Terri's religious rights violates the First Admendment:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If Congress cannot make a law which interferes with religion--then, sure as shootin,' "Hangin' Judge" Greer can't.

The fact that he and Michael Schiavo are not letting Terri, a Roman Catholic, partcipate in the exercise of her avowed religion, is in violation of the Constitution of the United States. He should be impeached. (And I have to wonder what they're so afraid of--c'mon--a drop of wine and a crumb of bread?)

As for him being a "Baptist." Whatever. Jesus said just as we know trees by their fruit, we know people by their actions (Matthew 7). It doesn't matter what label he totes.

Posted by ex-lib 2005-03-26 9:41:10 PM|| 2005-03-26 9:41:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 shouldn't Supreme Court hear an appeal when this law Congress just made is flatly ignored

They certainly could, and many would argue that they should. However, the law passed by Congress did not address the rights of citizens in general, and the Supreme court traditionally avoids getting involved in matters that will affect just one person, no matter how badly the case was handled. In this case, the law passed by Congress was confined to the rights of just one person. Some pertinent excerpts of Terriâs Law are as follows:

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
* * *
[T]he 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.
* * *
Upon the filing of a suit or claim under this Act, the District Court may issue a stay of any State court order . . .

A number of people believe that if the Congress had made the law affect the rights of all citizens, instead of just Terri, that the U.S. Supreme Court would have heard the case and might have issued a stay. Here, as pointless as it will be after Terriâs death, the case can still proceed to see if her rights were violated. Hence, although the clear purpose of the law is being ignored, the letter of the law is not being violated.

Terriâs Law, passed by the Congress does not overstep the separation of powers because it does not specify any rules of decision that the U.S. District Court judge must follow. That is at once both why the law is constitutional, and why the judge was free to not provide a TRO or any other injunctive relief. Having drawn a different judge in the federal case probably would have made all the difference in terms of the outcome of a TRO being issued. However, once a lower court judge issues a ruling (especially on an interlocutory matter like injunctive relief), the higher courts only rarely reverse those rulings -- and they virtually never upset findings of fact.

Getting a TRO or injunctive relief granted is difficult because four factors generally have to be met to qualify for the relief. In this case, the federal judge agreed that the first three factors were easily met, but he felt that the fourth (substantial likelihood of eventually prevailing on the merits) was not met. That is why he denied the relief. I think the federal judgeâs ruling is awful because the four factor test is supposed to be evaluated as each factor being balanced against the others. In this case, where the certainty of irreparable injury from death is so clear, the chance of prevailing on the merits should not have been weighed so heavily.

The only effective check on this mess would be for the Florida legislature to impeach the state court judge, Greer, and pass legislation allowing Governor Bush to take custody and care of Terri. The U.S. Congress could also get back into the fray to deal with the federal judge, but they already went pretty far out to extend federal jurisdiction in this case.

Posted by cingold 2005-03-26 10:14:21 PM|| 2005-03-26 10:14:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 A cautionary word to the wise:

One of the goals of the deconstructionist lefties in the Schiavo case is to get people to accept lethal injection as an end of life "opportunity," and to set a legal precedent to accept hearsay evidence for end of life decisions on the part of incapacitated people. They're chomping at the bit, as a matter of fact, (and, as a side note, one can only imagine how many people would like to have legal precedent to do away with their unpopular relatives through this avenue).

There is no doubt that George Felos, Judge Greer, Michael Schiavo, (and everyone else operating behind the scenes), KNEW IN ADVANCE that Terri's death would be painful and generally unacceptable to the American people. Instead of allowing the public to focus on the violation of Terri's constitutional rights, they've framed the argument in a "right to die" context, with the aim of gaining acceptance for their political plans. Instead of asking: "Should Terri have died?" They want people to skip that question and ask, "HOW should Terri have died?"

Basically, they want to create a cultural shift that encompasses a utilitarian, materialist view of human life--which they and their representatives can then control. It's all about power.

I would not be at all surprised if the insurance industry is also behind this push for death. Follow the money.

Next, the eugenicists also are playing on people's fears. Generally, people are quite terrified of being in Terri's situation, and think of themselves as not wanting to be in that situation under any circumstances. The real questions and issues are circumvented as people become entangled with their own personal drive for self-determination--which is why people tend to say "I'd rather be dead than live like that." It's no longer about Terri. The particulars become generalized.

Which is just dandy, in the opinion of the deconstructionists, since their aim is to move society toward accepting a "quality of life" argument in order to (eventually) elminate the following types of persons:

preborn infants
the terminally ill
the severely disabled
retarded persons
the mentally ill
the disabled
the elderly

Perhaps TGA could comment on how this differs from Nazi Germany a half a century ago.

Posted by ex-lib 2005-03-26 10:44:57 PM|| 2005-03-26 10:44:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 TGA - A big reason that the federal courts ruled against Terri is that Congress left them wiggle room to interpret the new law very narrowly. The federal district court judge seized on a single statement in the legislative history, that on Sen. Levin, to decide that the law required only a de novo review of the FL state court's actions and whether those constituted adequate due process under the US Constitution. In doing so they ignored a far larger body of evidence in the legislative history that indicates Congress actual intent was to order an entire new trial de novo.

The distinction is critical. If the federal district court was asked to act as an appellate court typically no new claims can be raised nor can any new evidence be introduced (in other words they would act as a true appellate court). IIRC the FL court received and chose not to consider a great deal of evidence that supports the parent's position. That's well within the purview of a trail court and the fact that the issue was litigated through the FL appellate courts for many years is a strong indication of adequate due process.

Thus when the federal district court judge found that Congress had merely mandated a review of the adequacy of due process in the FL courts Terri was already as good as dead because that's a nearly impossible standard to meet given the scope of the previous litigation. Had the federal district court determined that Congress' intent was to order an whole new trial de novo, new evidence would have been accepted, new witnesses called, new medical experts brought in, new diagnoses considered, and the outcome would have been far from certain so the court would have had to preserve Terriâs life long enough to conduct the trial. In theory, should Terri live long enough, there will still be a trial on the adequacy of the due process she received in the FL courts but the federal judiciary just doesnât believe that she has any reasonable chance of winning so theyâre not willing to keep her around long enough for it to actually happen.

Problem is that an order from Congress removing a specific case to the federal courts and calling for a new trial de novo is, as far as I know, unprecedented in our history and the judiciary is loath to allow such a challenge to their power as the implications are likely to be broad. So the federal courts didnât ignore the new law, they merely found a mildly plausible interpretation supported by a bare minimum of evidence in the legislative history that will have the effect of making the whole issue go away. Typically such an interpretation spurs new Congressional legislation to explicitly correct the fault and spurs a new round of litigation but that, of course, wonât be the case here as the issue will be moot in at most a few days.

The Supreme Court of the US is more concerned with homogenizing the differing interpretations of federal law among the various federal circuit courts than anything else. It would have been extraordinary for a number of reasons for them to have stepped in and ruled in Terriâs favor here because doing so might well have: attenuated the power of the judiciary, thrown out long-standing lines of demarcation between the powers of the various branches of government, essentially rendered all state court decisions subject to federal review, etc. When one considers the potential for mischief to be introduced into the system by their weighing in here, the fact that there are no differing opinions to consider from other federal circuits, and the fact that Congress acted w/o precedent itâs not at all surprising that the S.Ct. didnât intervene.

cingold - There will be no trial after Terri dies. If the parents attempt to litigate the issue the court will rule it moot and throw the case out.

Posted by AzCat 2005-03-26 10:53:42 PM|| 2005-03-26 10:53:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 I posted this over at LGF:

I think the fundamental issue with this case is, that science (in this case medecine) has evolved much faster than ethics. We are still not fully prepared to deal with medical progress, that has blurred the line between life and death.

In the old days several generations lived under one roof. The old folks were cared for at home and usually died there, too. You wouldn't send them to hospital to prolong their fading lives for a little more time. A dignified death was the best they could hope for, with the family standing at their bedside whenever this was possible.

Today the traditional, three (or even four) generation extentended family living under one roof hardly exists anymore. Old folks are usually given into the respoinsibility of hospitals and hospices. Modern medecine facilitates keeping them alive even after their "natural terms" have run out. We haven't caught up with that situation ethically.

With a young woman, the issue becomes more dramatic and tragic of course. The problem will become more pressing as medecine advances. In 30 years medecine might be able to keep you alive for decades.

The Nazis have forever poisoned the euthanasia issue. We rather avoid the problem. Terri reminds us that we can't.

Living wills can only do so much. It doesn't matter what leaning we have, we will need to face the issue. We're living in a grey zone.

It becomes especially thorny when money plays into it. To put it in brutal terms: PVS of a family member can ruin you completely. Your beloved one spends 15 or 20 years in limbo between life and death, and you might lose everything you have, until you are reduced to basic welfare. It happens in Germany, too. All that for a person who might "no longer be there". The moral conflicts can be terrifying.

Let's face it. Who has more chance of getting his plug pulled by the hospital: He who can still pay the bills or he who can't?

A can of worms if there ever was one. The Florida law Michael Schiavo is using does seem a little too easy imho.

But what will we do if there is no will at all? As we all grow older, when will society start groaning about the costs a 20 year long maintaining of a person in PVS entails, when these costs are higher than treating ten "regular" ill patients who have a chance to recover?

The issue will increasingly haunt us. And we won't be able to condemn one opinion over the other too quickly.

The Inuit left their old folks behind, because their harsh living conditions didn't allow the caring for fragile old people. Our powerful, rich society, based on humanistic, Christian values, can, and wants to. But how far will it be able to go in the future? What will happen when modern medecine cannot cure you, but keep you alive for 50 years... a century?

Soylent Green?

Posted by True German Ally 2005-03-26 11:08:31 PM|| 2005-03-26 11:08:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Good points ex-lib but hearsay evidence is already available where the person who originally made the statement is unavailable to testify (e.g., dead, incapacitated, hiding in a foreign jurisdiction, etc.) It's a coin-flip whether a trial court will admit such evidence but the fact that it took M.Schiavo's attorney 7 years to discover a very basic exception to the hearsay rule with which every law student is familiar speaks volumes as to the quality of the lawyering in this case.

Posted by AzCat 2005-03-26 11:09:28 PM|| 2005-03-26 11:09:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Yes I know, law's a bitch.

But when, in a death penalty case, new evidence comes up that could exonerate the defendant, wouldn't an execution be stayed to examine them? I don't say that the nurses are right but sworn affidavits are not made lightly. And the case rests on the husband's hearsay. Put that in doubt and the whole case crumbles.
Now, if in a death penalty case the only witness suddenly becomes very dubious, would you not reconsider the matter?
No harm done with a TRO. Should the new evidence be without merit, you can still execute. But you cannot reverse the execution.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-03-26 11:18:13 PM|| 2005-03-26 11:18:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 TGA - Ethically, morally and logically I agree with you but many protections in our system accrue specifically to "the accused" or to persons already convicted and aren't readily transferable to this situation. E.g., even the 8^th Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment doesn't apply because in the eyes of the courts T.Schiavo is not being punished. Hence the dichotomy that she can suffer a fate we would be Constitutionally prohibited from inflicting upon the worst criminal among us.

Your post above is dead-on. Science has far outstripped the ability of our courts and legislators. The legal implication is interesting but often goes unnoticed: common law is far superior to civil law in rapidly changing circumstances. Where a maze of legislation exists (civil law) and many formalities must be followed we can easily find ourselves arriving at unhappy conclusions such as the current situation with T.Schiavo because the letter of the law is wholly incapable of dealing in advance with every potential situation. Where legislators empower the courts to act with broad equitable powers and provide only a few general guidelines (common law) the courts can act quickly and exercise discretion to ensure equitable outcomes. There are pitfalls with both systems, we're witnessing one of them right now.

During the 20^th century we saddled ourselves with a mountain of legislation and undermined our common law traditions by attempting to legislate for every circumstance. In effect the legislature has been chipping away at the extent of judicial authority for a century and has now reached the point where so many laws have been enacted that the courts are able to reach any conclusion because of the often-conflicting and always highly complex nature of the law. It's ironic that this lack of certainty is the strongest criticism of the common law and yet we've traveled full circle and now have the worst of both worlds. Call it âtyranny of the judiciaryâ but itâs equally accurate to call it âtyranny of the legislatureâ.

Posted by AzCat 2005-03-26 11:41:08 PM|| 2005-03-26 11:41:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Realistically, its too late for Terri.

I pray for her soul and her family. And I pray for Judge Greer, the willing executioner.

The big problem here is this judge has a judicial record of "stubborness" - i.e. when ne feels he has enough facts, he makes a judgement and NEVER changes it.

The problem is that he did NOT have all the facts - the deck was stacked and he REFUSED to see any information to the contrary of the death-advocates hired by Michael Schiavo. This screams ouut to anyone that looks at the case with ALL the opinions in from the top brian injusry neuroscientists, including a Nobel Prize nominee who examined her and disagreed with the PVS diagnosis but whose testimony was disallowed. No MRI, no PET scan - which are considered basic tools in diagnosis of PVS - as one neuroscientist said "its criminal" that these were not done. Judge Greer never even visited her, and he was supposed to be in the role of her guardian. Never visited her in the hospital. Not once! What kind of guardian is that?

Mr Shciavo refused for her to have ANY treatment, to hasten her decay. They even had to get a court order to force Greer and Mr Schiavo to allow treatment of a bladder infection with antibiotics. And now they endanger her soul by denying her a priest and last rites, final viaticum. These 2 men are evil in their acts.

Terri's story is one of abuse and neglect at the hands of a man who left her for another woman long ago, and a judge who was to arrogant to accept that hey might have erred and might not have had all the facts - and refused to reconsider.

Judicial arrogance, in its most primal form, is what killed Terri Chiavo, in cooperation with an abusive ex-husband who wanted her to die.

For "Judge" Greer if I could talk to him:

Surley you must realize that the great JUDGE will judge us all for the final time, and you as a (alleged) Christian know this. He will judge you. Are you prepared to face Him with this mark on your soul?

You will die the eternal death, if you goes to your earthly death unrepentant for your prideful and arrogant murder of Terri Schiavo, using the court to enforce your & Michael Schiavo's brutal sentence from your misguided will. You are no more innocent than were the camp commanders in Dachau. After all, they were "just following the law", and refused to listen to conscience and see the contrary evidence before their eyes. Hell has a special place for you Judge Greer, right next to the SS unless you change.

Come clean Judge Greer - admit you were wrong, confess your sin to God, ask for forgivness for the wrong you know you have done: God's capacity to forgive exceeds even your capability to sin.

Its your choice. Ask God to help you make the right decision. You've made far too many of the wrong decisions to get yourself to the point where you are ordering the state to starve and dehydrate to death a human who would otherwise live.

As a Baptist, you shoudl know your know your Bible: how will you respond to God when he asks you (as is said in the Book of Saint Matthew):

Then He will also say to those on His left,

'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for

I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat;

I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;

I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'

"Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'

"Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'

"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Its all anyone needs to do: be gennuinely sorry, confess to God, ask forgiveness, do a true penance and make restitution as best you can - then you will be cleansed of this death mark on your soul.

Or rot in hell for eternity.

Your choice, "Judge" Greer.

Posted by OldSpook 2005-03-26 8:26:44 PM|| 2005-03-26 8:26:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by OldSpook 2005-03-26 8:26:44 PM|| 2005-03-26 8:26:44 PM|| Front Page Top

00:01 Seafarious
23:59 Burlyman
23:59 Alaska Paul
23:57 .com
23:56 badanov
23:56 Alaska Paul
23:52 True German Ally
23:48 Paul Moloney
23:43 badanov
23:41 AzCat
23:39 True German Ally
23:31 Laurence of the Rats
23:24 Barbara Skolaut
23:23 Alaska Paul
23:18 True German Ally
23:16 Barbara Skolaut
23:11 mom
23:09 AzCat
23:08 True German Ally
23:05 Sock Puppet 0â Doom
23:00 mom
22:53 AzCat
22:44 ex-lib
22:44 SR-71