So how has Terry Schiavo been denied due process?

Seems to me, and I will admit I have not read extensively about this case, that the courts have already beat this thing to death. But the Republicans keep jumping up and down about no due process.

Does anyone here know the answer to that question?

They are saying those courts are populated by activist judges. lol

freaking pitiful

Any judge who renders a decision with which they disagree is an "activist" judge.

Seems to me we have an "activist" Congress in place.


edited typo.

These idiots in Congress have just overturned the "rule of law" and thusly the Constitution itself. Oh, well.

And think it should go through more channels. A stretch I know, but I have seen many stretches the last few years...

Keep forgetting you are logged in on laptop under firefox...sigh...

It doesn't need the federal courts.

If there was any chance of Terri recovering I would say go for it. But she is just a shell.

The parents don't want to let go... they wouldn't let go if she was a mummy.

Then if that is true this is complete insanity that is going on and is nothing more than a power grab to roll the judiciary into the executive branch along with the legislative branch.

I.E the creation of a dictatorship.

Once on an appeal from Jeb and last week on a Congressional appeal. They clearly think the State has jurisdiction. I guess it goes to some federal court for a ruling, then back up to the Supremes to be kicked back to the State court again. Ridiculous.

were violated because she was not represented by a lawyer.
By claiming this, the spouse could automatically be kicked out of any decision making.

Since Terry has a legal husband, who has clearly communicated what her wishes are, how do the parents have any standing in the matter?

This whole thing just doesn't make any sense on the surface but like I posted earlier I have not really reviewed the case. I just figured it was another rally around the bible issue for evangelicals.

It was clearly stated that the lower court had appointed and attorney ad-litum, that's an attorney the court appoints to represent the interest of those who are not capable of representing their own interest, so I just don't see how there can be any issue of lack of due process.

Unless there is something I am missing in that I am not real familiar with the intricacies of medical matters.

her from the start.....if not then I can agree with their argument.

. . . in a legal proceeding.

We could give Terry Schiavo a chance to be heard, but the facts are that she can only moan. The law has provided that she can be heard through her husband. But Congress has chosen to ignore reality, logic, law, facts and the Constitution.

The "due process" argument is just another in a long line of twisted shit spewed by republicans since they started going after Clinton.

Wasn't a nuke supposed to go off in Washington?

"The "due process" argument is just another in a long line of twisted shit spewed by republicans since they started going after Clinton."

And the thing that is interesting about that, which occurred in the Clinton impeachment hearings in the house and none of the media picked up on, was the Democrats pushing for a censure. The Republicans were adamant about not allowing that and for good reason, looking at it from there view.

If the R's had of allowed a censure it would have in effect created a bill of attainder, which I believe is an issue with the Schiavo vote tonight, and would have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supremes. Hence why the Democrats were pushing for it, would have been a slam-dunk.

However, I guess all that has changed now.

Surely, the authority to confer jurisdiction upon lower federal courts is limited by the specific grants of power the people gave to a federal government upon ratification of the Constitution?

As far as I can see this whole thing is an abomination.

we have the power to grant federal courts' jurisdiction -- and we are granting this to them. Terri has had due process, so I can see nothing more here than the republicans don't like the state court decision. If the Oregon SC votes that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional -- (just heard the arguments on C-span last weekend so presume we are waiting for a decision) will Congress decide that their decision needs to go to the federal courts, too? That case is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, also.

To confer jurisdiction upon a lower federal court for the sole purpose of usurping a state court decision.

Seems to me that this would trammel the 10th Amendment and violate the sovereignty of state courts over matters of state law.

had never been heard. I thought that there was a very thorough hearing in the Florida trial court several years ago in which the judge ruled that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that her wishes were that she not be kept alive in such a state. The ruling was appealed and affirmed by the appellate court and that the Florida Supreme Court, which the Bushes refuse to honor, declined to review the case. It sounds like due process to me.

parents trump spouses? There goes marriage.

They're fucking morons.

So the federal court will hear the case (when??) and most likely agree with the other 19 judges (how long will that take??)and rule in favor of Michael. Then what? What will congress do then? It will certainly suck up a news cycle or two. The radical right will then move to . . ?

why they have burnt up so much time and taxpaper money to further debate what had already been lawfully decided.

if they rule as the preceding judges have and she is taken off life support, then she will die in a matter of weeks if not less. What kind of circus can we expect then?