Can a bad case make worse law?

First, I think ultimately Schiavo would be better off to be left to die instead of 'living' as she is.

That said, I don't trust Michael and don't think she really expressed much of a wish not to be kept alive. This goes to show that we all should have living wills especially if our wishes aren't the same as our family's wishes in this regard. The parents are clearly bordering on delusional but they didn't just become pro life, this had to have been the way they were while Teri was around. Thus I can see why the family is behaving as they are.

But, the law is the law. Spouses, even those who have moved on, have the right to speak for each other in this regard. Court after court after court after court (go on for about 15 more) have upheld this. Even the right wing whacko Pryor sided with Michael.

This is why the Conservatives are splitting on this. More than a few could imagine Clinton behaving this way. Defying courts, defying law, defying the Constitution. For true conservatives this is a nightmare. A all powerful federal executive who has literally nothing reigning him or her in. A Congress who can authorize an end round the Florida courts to get a tube put back in can also do so to get one removed. There literally is no limit to what they could have done had they gotten away with this. Fortunately they didn't.

Even though I would have agreed with the end result of not having the tube removed, these means are way, way, way too far. One can only hope they pay for this dearly. But we thought they would pay for Impeachment, and they didn't. We thought they would pay for the war, and they didn't. They need to pay for this. People like Chris Shays, Nancy Johnson, Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe, and Rick Santorum need to pay for this. If they don't, they will do it again.

she did? How did you come to that conclusion?

not a one. It doesn't ring true.

Do you not trust ALL the judges who heard this same testimony over and over and over again, and weighed the credibility of the witnesses?

was who, under the law, makes the decision (assuming that Teri made no provisions at all) and that is the husband. The courts didn't need to go into Teri's wishes and thus pretty much didn't.

I surely did.

but if I did I might. But not that. If I knew my parents were 180 degrees opposed to me on an issue like this I would have put it in writing and told both them and any siblings. As an analogy, my mom would have had problems with a same sex marriage but if I had one, I would make sure that it was abundently clear in writing and orally that he makes the decisions not my family. I would be more likely not less given the fact of her opposition (moot point now since she passed).

The rest of your post is moot until you do some research.

Now that is unbiased for you.

and over and over again the witness to this statement is Michael's brother. Her family is united in having the opposite opinion as to her beliefs. Not a single person who is closer to her, than to him, sides with him as to her wishes.

they, as guardians, would still make her keep tubes in.

How's that taste?

so that leaves me with no idea what she wanted since I can trust neither side. Though the parents aren't saying she said she wanted the tube so at least they are honest to that extent.

And the reports from the G A Ls while you are at it.

that she did not want any tubes.

It's the same. The only thing is that the fundies got Delay, et al to let the same law go through the federal courts that went through the state courts, by giving federal courts jurisdiction.

Its all just a sham, a mockery, an attempt to make RWers look like Gawdly, Life'Luvin, people and dems look like cold hearted people who will starve helpless women to death.

It backfired. It didn't work. They are scrambling to try to get out of the way of the stampede of outrage voiced by 83 percent of the public

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503240001

From court document

Michael Schiavo testified as to a few discussions he had with his wife concerning life support. The Guardian Ad Litem felt that this testimony standing alone would not rise to clear and convincing evidence of her intent. The court is not required to rule on this issue since it does have the benefit of the testimony of his brother and sister-in-law. As with the witness called by the Respondents, the court had the testimony of the brother and sister-in-law transcribed so that the court would not be hamstrung by relying upon its notes. The court has reviewed the testimony of Scott Schiavo and Joan Schiavo and finds nothing contained therein to be unreliable. The court notes that neither of these witnesses appeared to have shaded his or her testimony or even attempt to exclude unfavorable comments or points regarding those discussions. They were not impeached on cross-examination. Argument is made as to why they waited so long to step forward, but their explanations are worthy of belief.

<...>

Also the statements she made in the presence of Scott Schiavo at the funeral luncheon for his grandmother that "if I ever go like that just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine." and to Joan Schiavo following a television movie in which a man following an accident was in a coma to the effect that she wanted it stated in her will that she would want the tubes and everything taken out if that ever happened to her are likewise reflective of this intent. The court specifically finds that these statements are Terri Schiavo's oral declarations concerning her intention as to what she would want done under the present circumstances and the testimony regarding such oral declarations is reliable, is creditable and rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence to this court.

snip

contradicts: All of the witnesses which say her wishes are to have the tube removed are closer to him than to her. That is what I said. I think the court basicly decided that the result (removing the feeding tube) was a good thing and glossed over this. Frankly, I have no earthly idea if she said it or not. Given that I don't particularly trust Michael, I fail to see why I should trust his sibling or in law either. Maybe she said it, maybe she didn't. That isn't a very high standard.

up to the F. Supreme Court.

Terri's family was able to tell their side. From them, the court found that Terri made a statement about someone on life support when she was *11 or 12* (a person named Karen Ann Quinlin was in the news at the time)

Our laws are degrading along with every other part of society. The BFEE loves to side step the U.S. Constitution. The Dems let Bush Sr. pardon all those fucking Iran-Contra crooks and now they control the federal government AGAIN. It's sad that our last amendment allowed OUR Congress critters to give themselves a raise! What's minimum wage at now? How corrupt must a Congress get before it fucks over the rest of us?

and it proabably will here too...