Why the judicial decision is unacceptable for Terri Schiavo

Many on this board have opined that the decision
to starve Terri to death was done legally, and
therefore must be accepted without rancor.

So are we saying all judicial decisions are to be
accepted without rancor? What about the supreme court
decision to award Dubya the presidency? It was handed
down by the SCOTUS, the highest court in the country
and therefore we must accept it without rancor?

What about the decision to find OJ not guilty of
murder? Is OJ still looking for the real murderer?

If we are not consistent, then we can not escape the
label of HYPOCRICY.

:shrug:

In fact, some,like me, think it is always wrong.

Claiming it is not killing seems an extreme position - far out of the realm of reality.

... what constitutes reality.

80%-20% people. That is a CONSISTANT poll showing, regardless of how they word it or what aspect of the case they are covering. the 20% minority (which unfortuantely includes Jackson and Sharpton - go figure) are just screaming really loud, but they are so small in number it is ludicrous that we are still discussing this. It is a NON-ISSUE. Guess what? If we KILLED Terri, then you guys have a LOT of lives to save because while you are sitting here reading this post another couple people have had their tubes removed. You are wasting time man - go save them. Have fun.

... has been eliminated.

:D

And that ain't reality.

I guess you better notify authorites so they can have me arrested before the day is over.....

Certainly was the consequence it certainly WASNT the point or motive. Honoring the Terris wishes, was the point, and motive

it real bs that whenever anyone has a different point of view hes uses "rw techniques".

... the post adopts RW talking points almost verbatim. It is founded on a RW framing of the issue that itself is based on distortion.

Edited to add: Then again, after a bit of research, I'm not at all sure of the OP's intentions.

Is an "RW Talking point" doesn't obviate the need to respond to it - I'd like to see more time on DU spent engaging with and dismantling the arguments put forward by the right, rather than trying to exist in splendind isolation.

For what it's worth, my response to the original poster would be that *as far as (s)he goes*, (s)he's absolutely right. The argument "the courts said Mrs Shiavo should be allowed to die, therefore she should be allowed to die" is not logically valid.

However, the conclusion that (s)he presumably wants us to draw, that therefor Mrs Shiavo should not have been allowed to die, is wrong - *on this occasion* the decision of the courts was right, because that was what Mrs Shiavo wanted.

(S)he's rebutted one argument (although not one I think I've ever actually seen anyone advance...), but that's it.

... the matter has been discussed and debated incessantly for a week now, and the facts of the matter have presented over and over and over again.

For someone to come along now and inject the same RW talking points yet again seems intentionally disruptive.

A need to respond to it? Forever? I don't think so.

Honoring what were apparently her wishes and letting her finish was simply the right thing to do, IMO.

gave birth to Terri, out of the process completely?

essentially torturing what remained of her body for as long as they could, FOR THEIR OWN SELFISH REASONS.

If this had happened to YOUR spouse, and your in-laws had turned your spouses illness and death into a NATIONAL CIRCUS complete with JUGGLERS for JESUS, selling their mailing list for PROFIT, and their 'spiritual advisor' went on national television within ONE HOUR after her death and accused YOU of "heartless cruelty", what would you do? Let 'em in? After years of being vilified, you'd spend your last moments with your wife with in-laws whose spokespeople have openly called for you to burn in hell?

If so, you're a much better person than I am.

and completely understandable on Mr. Schiavo's part, IMO.

I suppose it all depends on how sincere the spouse's
behavior is. A circus? No! That was out of line.

In this particular case, there were questions raised
of how sincere Michael Schiavo was in looking after
Terri's welfare.

The question was whether he should have allowed his in-laws at her death. I answered that question as I saw it. I've been through family diviseness at death.

Now you've raised a new question, the sincerity of Michael Schiavo.

But how about answering the original question first?

You mean the rumors the 'family' was spreading about domestic abuse, that had been brought up in the many, many court cases and totally dismissed as 'incredible'??

whom he had a common law relationship going. I don't
understand how he can still remain a well meaning guardian
of Terri Schiavo, when his financial & personal interests
would benefit with Terri's death?

Now, if Terri had no parents who wanted to look after her,
that changes the case slightly.

And his financial interests did NOT benefit from Mrs. Schiavo's death - there were no insurance policies. The courts decided, again and again and again and again, that he had her best interests at heart and she wanted to die if in a PVS.

And once again, the law states that spouses are the guardians of each other. If you don't like it, get the law changed - but that opens a whole new can of worms. That would destroy the 'sanctity of marriage' Repukes are always talking about when dissing gay marriage.

He could have divorced Terri legally at ANY time. Financial interests? WHAT financial interests? Good god, the man was offered millions of dollars to walk away -- just last month -- and he turned them down/ Michael has gained NOTHING from this, but threats, slander, libel, etc. NOTHING, except for my eternal respect. He could have gained alot personally and financially if he had forsaken his wife and his best friend and traded her away like a baseball card. This is what makes me know he is sincere, and a pretty good guy.

check out the story:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/orl-asecmschiavo21032105mar21,0,5267177,print.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

"They also have agreed that Michael Schiavo, who became a nurse to tend to his wife, presented clear and convincing evidence that she would not want to be kept alive by artificial means."

yeah--real selfish guy, huh? he became a nurse to take care of her? I don't know if i could do such a thing. I give him a lot of credit.

Good God, they had Jesus Christ on a Trailer Hitch, for crying out loud! Round the clock BAGPIPERS! People screaming, fainting, giving Nazi salutes to law officers. And exactly how is that NOT a circus?

Honestly, I cannot believe one person making so many wild statements unless they're getting a real kick out of it.

...the excluded themselves. From the beginning they demanded that their participation should include control of how the matter would be handled. I've often wondered whose interests they were really serving.

if it involves plastic surgery? Whether they are sterilized? What type of cancer treatment they should obtain? Treatment for other major life threatening disease or ailment? Which hospital or doctors they must use? If they should try experimental dangerous treatment?

The extent of the process is ONLY advisory. They don't get to make the ultimate decision. The function of the parents in this case is to provide support.

Once a child becomes an adult and is emancipated the parent loses all control and responsibility over that child.

Generally children can become emancipated prior to state legal age by the following:
1) Self-supporting
2) Join the service
3) Get married

In marriage, responsibility is now shared between two adults over their own lives.


When my parents had medical treatment I didn't decide what they should do. I gave them my thoughts about issues that they were concerned about. Basically, it was for their own comfort in knowing that they were doing what most people would do in the same situation.

Her parents have said that even if she had a living will, they would have ignored her wishes.

Then there's the selling of her image to anybody donating to their cause, selling their donor list to right wing organizations, and, oh yes, the controlling, ridiculing atmosphere she grew up in that caused the bulimia that started this whole thing!!

Plus, her husband is her legal guardian (that's the law - part of the 'sanctity of marriage' the Repukes are so quick to pull out when they're dissing gay marriage) and as such makes decisions for her.

Your spouse is your legal next of kin. Your parents raise you, and are usually always part of your life. But, the point is, you grow up and leave home and live YOUR life, not live as part of your parents' life.

And, the Schindlers lost their moral authority for asking Michael Schiavo to consider their request when they started publicly calling him a murderer, wife abuser, thief, etc.

if your heart stops you are dead, if your brain dies you are just as dead. Our culture has developed the means to keep dead people alive. WHY??? What point does it serve? It has been said the keeping dead people alive serves the purpose of holding off death until we invent a way, medically, to save them. For WHO? If a person's wishes mean nothing, then I guess it is OK to keep dead people alive.:kick:

Are you advocating anarchy?

...then we can not escape the label of uneducated.

not the best typist.

The LA4 were the cops who beat up Rodney King on video and were acquitted by a Semi Valley jury of white people who live with police officers. I also think the five who put Bush in office were guilty of treason.

Thank you for pointing out that courts are sometimes wrong. I have seen a lot of hypocrisy on this board in connection with the Shiavo case. Thank you for bringing it to light.

allow nature to take its course after removing artifical means of sustaining her life.


.....the decision
to starve Terri to death was done legally......

as this one.

It probably was the"right thing to do" given the evidence about TS's condition, her wishes and the applicable law(s).

just pointing out that we must be consistent in
accepting the voracity of ALL judicial decisions.

Or must we decide, in advance, to either accept or reject all court decisions?

You line of argument here is flawed from the very start.

We can express independent thought.

There are bad laws, bad judges, bad prosecutors and bad defense attorneys. And sometimes the good ones make mistakes. Sometimes a jury screws up. The process does not have mathematical precision.

Which part of the TS thing is problematic for you, the facts of the case? the evidence as presented? the quality of the legal representation? the law?

I'm sure you know that, because you keep trying so vociferously to trap others with it.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/31/1558242

NH made some really interesting comments that I had not read before on DN.

Worth a look.

"So are we saying all judicial decisions are to be
accepted without rancor?"

The decision in 2000 was unconstitutional, just as was Terri's law. There WAS no "Federal question" in either case. The SCOTUS should have refused Bush v. Gore, just as they refused to entertain "Terri's law". The SCOTUS erred in 2000 in making a "one-time exception" for obvious political reasons. Terri's law would have been, likewise, a "one-time exception", a decision for ONE person, with all of her particular sets of circumstances, allowing Congress to intervene in a judicial matter.

So what it says is, the SCOTUS was WRONG in 2000.

OJ is a different matter altogether. And, furthermore, although he "won" in criminal court, he lost the civil case, remember?

BTW, it's spelled "hypocrisy".

Under the Constitution of the United States, OJ is innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty.

However, the SCOTUS was WRONG in 2000. What they did was CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

interpreter of laws. Googly and Carolab do not decide
which laws was interpreted correctly. The constitution
awards that power to the judges. Right?

So if Terri's killing by starvation was ok because it
was decided by a judge, then certainly SCOTUS is correct
in annoiting Bush.

But to equate what the Supreme Court did in Gore v. Bush and what court after court ruled in Schiavo case is just plain wrong. The SCOTUS in handing the 2000 election to Bush contorted itself in such obvious ways as to fully earn the description of hypocrites . Scalia and his henchpersons , who in decision after decision and speech after speech proclaiming the primacy of States' Rights' over Federal encroachment , decided a presidential election on purely partisan and demonstrably intellectually dishonest grounds .
You can disagree with the outcome of the Schiavo case but a rational argument cannot be made that the various judges created or distorted the law . They followed it to the letter. They should be commended not vilified . If anyone wants a different outcome the ire should be directed at the Legislature so that when there is conflicting testimony on the disabled person's wishes , the courts are instructed to err on the side of life .

because Mrs. Schiavo was not starved to death. She was already dead when this process started. The removal of the feeding tube from the body that once was Mrs. Schiavo's body only facilitated the completion of the death process which was begun 15 years ago.

To your point about accepting court decisions without rancor it seems to me that you presume that all decisions are created equal in the eyes of those that think this decision is a correct one. This could not be further from the truth.

In this case multiple courts ruled in a consistent way and in accord with the laws of Florida and the US. In the eyes of many the attacks on these decisions are baseless and ad hominem.

was damaged for cognitive thinking. Her brain was
directing her heart, lungs, kidneys and liver just fine.
That is hardly a dead person.

The reason the SCOTUS position was not acceptable is that they didn't make one. They remanded the decision to recount the votes back to Florida. Effectually they backed states rights as they had no right to intervene as they didn't have a right to intervene in the Shiavo matter. In Bush Vs Gore. the problem was the time factor and Katherine Harris refusing to extend the time for the counting of the vote
As far as the OJ case is concerned, that had absolutely nothing to do with a judge. OJ was tried by a jury and the prosecution was so inept that they couldn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge Edo (sp) had no choice but to read the jury verdict!
We are a nation of laws. We have an obligation to follow the law. If we do not that is called anarchy, not hypocrisy.

We have a balance of power in this nation. The congress and the president violated the constitution when they intruded into the powers of the judiciary.This is not a case about the life of a PVS victim or a family squabble. This is actually about the intervention of the government in the rights of the individual.By our constitution , it is the rights of the individual that are protected.

This is the first shot across the bow of the judiciary system. The Right to Lifers have publicly stated that they would like to remove all power from the judiciary and place it in the hands of the President and congress. They feel that they have permission from God and God's law trumps our judicial system. Randall Terry states they have the obligation to do this by force if necessary

This is tantamount for calling for civil war.Are you okay with that?

trying to do is questioning the consistency aspect
of accepting all judicial decisions without rancor.

:wtf:

we questioned the Scotus BushV Gore ruling we were hypocritical to support the judiciary in the Shiavo case. There does not have to be consistency because they are apples and pears! Nothing has to be "accepted without rancor" but there should be consistency in examples. Actually Bush V. Gore and the Shiavo case are both outside of the purview of Scotus so there is no point discussing them.They are states rights issues.

on this forum when the SCOTUS annoited Bush? Were they not
legally appointed and approved by senate?

And I do know enough about law to understand that Googly and
Saracat do not decide which case was properly decided. It is
the JUDGE who has the power under the constitution to decide
how the law is to be correctly interpreted.

You see saracat, if we accept this decision about Terri Schiavo
then we have no credibility is pooh poohing the SCOTUS decision
or the OJ decision. We can't selectively decide which decision
is wrong and create turmoil.

I don't recall changing the entire judicial system because OJ wasn't convicted.

Every damned person in the US has the legal right to remove life support, except Terri Schiavo. This is fucking insane. I do not know what in the hell is wrong with this country. Why shouldn't people have a fundamental right to choose not to have their corpse hooked up to machines?

Maybe we just fire all the doctors, go back to faith healings, and be done with it.

want to be kept alive. But I am having trouble
with the notion of disregarding Terri's parents
wishes of keeping her alive, and taking the responsibility
on themselves.

Do you honestly think this case was a matter of parents' wishes versus husband's wishes? :eyes:

emotions over abdicating fate of my flesh and blood to
a man who does not even live with the spouse, has knocked
up 2 kids with another woman, and trying to decide about
killing my daughter? I hope you can see my dilema.

I can see that you've ignored every point that every poster in this thread, while continuing to push distortions and lies.

Happy... whatever it you're doing.

He's the one that called the EMTs. He's also the one who spent huge amounts of time on her acre, so much so he drove the nursing staff crazy. HE'S the one that has been steadfast and never yielding to incredible outside pressure. Michael Schiavo is the one who has stayed at her bedside or in a nearby room for the whole two 13 days it took her to die. He wasn't the one running outside getting his face on TV every minute spouting lies and malice -- like Bob Schindler and his kids. I'll excuse Mary Schindler -- I have a gut feeling she's been a bit of a dupe in most of this.

He has not "knocked up" a woman. I consider this horribly misogynistic and disrespectful. I'm sure he loves his girlfriend. And he does love Terri Schiavo. The man has been demonized unfairly. I hope, soon, he gets some peace and happiness. Although I'm afraid it's more likely he'll be finding a bullet going through his head. <sigh>

You're just having fun yanking chains.

anything goes because googly wants it to be.

you did not complain when the supremes annoited Bush?

There are bad laws, bad judges, bad prosecutors and bad defense attorneys. And sometimes the good ones make mistakes. Sometimes a jury screws up. The process does not have mathematical precision.

So I ask you: which part of the TS decision is problematic for you? the facts of the case? the evidence as presented? the quality of the legal representation? the law?

In the case of Bush v Gore, the SCOTUS decision was arguable UNCONSTITUTIONAL, since the decision and the reasoning was declared to have no further reach that that one case (equal protection was violated).

you apparently like knocking these guys down.

And iirc, seven different people (not her husband or parents) testified that she said she would not want to be kept alive in such a condition.

If the parents wanted her taxidermized so they could visit her body, would that be okay with you? Keeping her heart and kidneys working for so many years that her brain atrophies, for the sake of the parents, seems about as gruesome to me.

Way it is.

Show me this "decision" you speak of. You can't. The courts affirmed that Terri's right to die with dignity and without life support. They determined that she expressed her wishes to witnesses based upon evidence presented by both sides. You are so confused. This is a country of laws... not men and certainly not the ravings of a minority of a few insane, rabid theocrats.

courts by judges to a decision made by a jury of peers.

interpret the law not make it!

case and disagreed repeatedly. In the Schiavo case, the parents lost every time. Sure they won a couple of emergency injucntions early on and won a few judicial reviews. But the main decision was NEVER over-turned.

several witnesses (while in sound mind) that she did not want to be kept alive in this condition.

The courts upheld her right to that decision.

I have asked many people if they would be as upset about the judge's decision if there had been more than three witnesses? Would people be as upset if one of the witnesses had been Terry's own brother or best friend?

I see nothing wrong with being upset at a decision a judge makes.

But regardless of how one feels about the outcome, lets not throw out the laws that protect our right to refuse medical treatment.

she had 0 brain activity....she was dead-dead-dead. i wish that people would accept the fact that all that died was her----body-----! i hope that all the people that object to what happened have to face the same thing and have to make the same decisions and see how the fuck they feel. oh well since i had to make the same call for my mom i guess i`m just sick of people second guessing what has happened and calling what my sisters and i did murder

bur don't let the facts get in the way of a good right-wing influenced straight-outta fox news rant.

:eyes:

RL

it is proper to outraged at the perversion that kept her body going for as long as it did.

perversion -- perversion -- perversion.

to one judgement 4 1/2 years ago re: the prez.

This case has been litigated near to death, appealed and reappealed. If after all that time, we can't accept the judgement of the court, when can we?

I will grant you, of course the judiciary can and does make mistakes. And when they do, those mistakes should be decried, not accepted without rancor. If anything, one could say they're accepted WITH rancor, because even in the case of the Dubya, to do anything else results in something too close to lawlessness.

on their behalf as this one did. Courts & juries are not infallible; that's why you have levels of appeal at a state level, levels at a federal level and appeals to SCOTUS, not to mention grossly inappropriate legislative interference. I wouldn't be surprised if this case set a record for the number of bodies involved in listening to evidence & evaluating the decisions of lower court judges.

If courts do not have jurisdiction to make decisions in cases where people differ in opinion, what's the better alternative? Flipping a coin?

apparently, this modern age is too complicated for some people.

i would note that demands for keeping alive a human body that no longer has even the merest vestiges of human sentience is really some sort of sick, ghoulish idolatry to the flesh.

and what is upside-down in this case is that the position of the save terri schiavo movement is driven by the materialism of the flesh which is usually the accusation deists level at atheists.

i would note that the use of the word "starvation" is incorrect in this situation and intentionally inflammatory.

the strawman arguments about comparing the schiavo case with bush v. gore and the simpson trial are as simple-minded examples as they come. the only common thread in the three cases is that they were all court cases.

i would have loved to have had 19 state and federal judges examine the florida ballot case for 12 years before bush was installed as president. is that the type of parity found in the decisions of the two cases? the simpson case pitted collective society iself (the State) as the adversary to simpson in its trial and it was "us" against simpson, no such thing in the schiavo case where the "State" acted as arbitrator, not executioner.

one did not see congressional bills voted upon to overturn bush v. gore and even had the democrats been in control of the congress still it would not have happened, because with justifiable cause the democrats adhere to the rule of law, and the majority of congressional republicans do not.

ignoring the details of these situations and how they differ is what context is all about. only the lazy, dull-witted or the ideologically driven ignore the facts.

I have yet to hear anybody honestly say that if their brain were mush and they didn't know what was happening and couldn't control themselves and there was no hope of improvement, they'd like to hang around for other people to manipulate, clean up, photograph, etc...

These are not even remotely similar. In the OJ case you had a true divide in this country, so it was known even before the verdict that there would be people compleining about any verdict. And in the Bush v Gore case, it was a 5-4 decision with all 4 dissenters writing their own opinions, one of which declared that the true loser of the election was the american people for no longer being able to count on the courts as an impartial gaurdian of the rule of law. In the Schiavo case 7 years of litigation had no other outcome than what we saw at a national level (remember, those of us in Florida have been dealing with this for a LONG time...hell, I thought she was already dead about 2 years ago until this all came back up a few weeks ago. I was shocked that they were STILL appealing back THEN!). In neither the Bush v Gore case or OJ case did it go through the state system for 7 years before goint all the way to the supreme court whre it was denied, kicked back down to state courts, legislative intervention at both the state and federal levels, then kicked up to the federal courts THREE TIMES in TWO WEEKS, then 3 more rejections from the SCOTUS. You can NOT compare these cases.

The dissenting opinion written by Justice Stevens concluded with what many consider to be a scathing indictment:

What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

I respectfully dissent.

Also notable was the dissent of Justice Ginsburg, which after a rather scathing opinion concluded with I dissent rather than the standard I respectfully dissent, a rare breach of convention observers took to highlight the stark and bitter division within the court regarding this case.

The decision was widely criticized for a special provision in the majority opinion, stating that the case did not set precedent in any way, and could not be used to justify any future court decision.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Her death was caused by dehydration. Which, of course, she could not feel.

I know that word 'starve' is chosen because it evokes such a visceral response.

as we have had to accept both bush and oj with rancor. but regardless, oj is free and playing golf and bush is president, again

If you're gonna fling that accusation around in all caps, then you might as well spell it correctly.

Not only is Terri Schiavo in a better place, but it keeps getting better by the day.

25 judges...4 rounds at the Supreme Court...7 out of 8 neurologists...all thought the case was bullshit and Terri should be allowed to die with dignity after she was diagnosed as brain-dead...YEARS AGO!

If you want to talk about hypocrisy...all you need to do is look at the perpetrators of this madness and see where only shame and disgust should be applied.

There are two reasons to resist a judicial decision.

One is: the law it is based on is fundamentally wrong or flawed.
The other: the judges demonstrably misapplied or misinterpreted the relevant laws or evidence.

Jury verdicts are different. Juries are permitted to pick and choose whom they believe. Juries get things right a lot of a time, but they do fail some instances. The first OJ Simpson jury refused to accept the scientific evidence involved for reasons they could not defend with any integrity later. The scientifically literate or science-believing people who followed the trial were appalled at the verdict. (The people who claim the blood evidence was planted cannot explain even a quarter of the amount that was found, and in the best case scenario their rationalization of police planting is only equally probable to the blood having been left by the killer- in which case an honest scientifically skeptical or illiterate jury should or would have delivered a hung verdict.)

The Schiavo court proceedings established her medical condition and what her closest relatives believe her desires to be under the conditions. There was never a dispute about the laws involved being in any way fundamentally wrong until Jebbie and the Florida legislature and then Dubya and Congress concocted some special ones to pander to the Religious Right which transparently violated the constitutional equal protection and guardianship rights of Michael Schiavo. These were then overturned or ignored. The Schindlers and Religious Right then went on an appeals process fishing expedition to find a court (usually conservative ones are good for this) that would misread and misapply the laws the way they wanted them to.

The Religious Right does this game of running appeals as far as they can be taken. For one thing, there's nothing to be lost by it and everything to be gained, but you need at least two successive tiers of the system to collaborate with you- one to give your side what you want, the next one to reject the other side's appeal. This is the reason the ridiculous federal lawsuit about Massachusetts gay marriage (Largess v SJC) went all the way to the Supreme Court, despite everybody involved knowing that the Guarantee Clause "argument" by the anti-marriage side was a load of bullshit. It was purely a fishing expedition for a sufficiently biased set of judges, but all lower tiers passed on that and the USSC rejected the final appeal because there wasn't the flimsiest procedural or rhetorical or evidentiary fig leaf available in the pleading for the ridiculousness of the anti-marriage side's plea.

But they pretty much proved the LAPD planted some evidence. They had a picture of a gate, with no blood, then later blood was found there with the perservative the LAPD puts in their blood samples. Some of the blood seemed to be missing and a picture of Van Atter was taken WITH the blood sample AT the crime scene. After you show that some evidence was planted how do you convict?

my post. My problem is with those who are now saying
"shut up and accept the Schiavo decision because it is the
law". Yet these are some of the same people who vociferously
objected to the supreme court decision on annoiting Bush.

We have every right to express our opinions on every case,
some we agree and others we do not. But don't say in one case
the court was wrong, and in the other, shut up and accept it
because it was the court decision.

But don't say in one case the court was wrong, and in the other, shut up and accept it
because it was the court decision.

Why not accept that people talk in a kind of shorthand, and emotionally? Why fulminate that they don't tell you all the things they have considered, and not considered, in full right up front?

This is the United States of America. People here will talk about almost anything, which is a bit peculiar and risks miscommunication. People will be inarticulate and say what they feel rather than what they mean.

Sometimes the courts are felt to rule on proper warrents, and their claim to authority is accepted. Sometimes the courts don't appear to rule on proper warrants, and an injust ruling is immoral to accept even if civility tells us to obey it. American culture accepts a certain amount of incivility in speech- after all, sometimes it is more conveying of truth and an acknowledgment of our freedom to be somewhat wild.

have had to "make it up". Under what precedent could this decision be made? There is absolutely no statute that could even be loosely interpreted to allow the parents, without any just cause, to intervene.

Every court decision you cite to make your point, was
based in some part on an existing statute. It was the "interpretation" of the statute/precedent/law that was questioned. However, if there is no law to interpret, there is no way to just invent it.

And, speaking on a personal level, as a former hospice nurse, the decision to allow Teri to pass peacefully was the caring thing to do, and is done every day by loving and compassionate family members.

I would recommend you work as a volunteer at a hospice. We had wonderful volunteers whom we could call at anytime to come and sit with our actively dying patients, those who, for whatever reason, didn't have friends or family to sit with them in their final hours. This would reassure you that death is a natural part of God's plan, as much as birth and life. I felt honored and deeply grateful to the patients and families who allowed me to share this profound experience with them and I was forever changed spiritually by the experience.

MKJ

I don't advocate anarchy. Barring truly extraordinary circumstances in which there is no recourse or justice under the law - situations such as revolutions in other countries - the courts rulings should be followed.

And that's why Bush is President.

I don't like it, but the court ruled and despite the intellectual dishonesty of the ruling, there was no recourse after that.

Likewise, the courts have considered Schiavo's parents' case in court after court. Appeal after appeal. They have ruled that Michael Schiavo has custody and the right to decide his wife's life.

This is really very simple. If a death row inmate has been found guilty over 20 times. I would still oppose the death penalty but I would not maintain he was innocent. If people are going to say, hey I just believe in life so much I cannot accept anything else, fine. I disagree but I can accept that. Continuing to argue the FACTS of the case however after more than 20 court decisions just doesnt make sense. Does anyone really think THEY have evidence the court forgot to consider or that the Shindlers lawyers were too dumb to bring up. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. Sure say that you dont agree with the decision as to its consequences, just stop pretending that we have no credible reason to believe that what was happening was Terris wishes were being carried out or that she WASNT in a PVS

What do you plan on doing to all those renegade judges?

If Terri "starved to death", would you also agree with the terms used in the following question: did you "suffocate" your father when you pulled him off the ventilator?

googly

n : a cricket ball bowled as if to break one way that actually breaks in the opposite way.

Most of us have very specific opinions about individual laws, elected officials, and court decisions. It is part of human nature to form opinions about important issues on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, very few intelligent human beings would argue that you have to agree with every law in order to support the legal system. For example, you can oppose drug laws without opposing all laws and not still not be a hypocrite.

The same is true of court cases. You can disagree with one court decision but agree with other court decisions. You can also recognize the rights of the courts to have jurisdiction over certain cases even if you do not agree with their decisions.

who are saying "Schiavo decision was done in a court of law
and therefore you better shut up and accept it, since we are
a nation of laws" paraphrasing.

Yet these are some of the same people who objected vociferously
when Bush was annoited to the presidency by the supreme court.

That is my ONLY point. Inconsistency bordering on hypocrisy.

You are 100% correct in saying everyone has right to express
different opinions. But then when someone else has a differing
opinion, such as in this Schiavo case, don't read them the riot
act.

Some are based on good reasoning and some are based on bad reasoning. Why do you think the courts are wrong on Shiavo?

solidly pro-Schiavo family is my guess at this time.

It is good to have a civil discussion.

The Terri Schiavo case has resulted in huge media
attention and national dialog. I am hoping something
good, rational, just and humane laws will be the result.

Yeah, right - change the laws to what suits. Make sure you run it by Delay & Frist first, get the 'correct' diagnosis of the condition of the laws you all want to change to fit your ideal of 'just & humane'. The rest of the people in the country got no business sticking their nose in what the frenzied fundie freaks declare to be 'right'. Let the rest of us know when you decide just what that'll be, ok?

Yup, I trust the repubs to be 'just & humane'.

The ones we have currently were proven to work quite well.

Your post title implies you have a reason for why the decision is unnacceptable and then you just spew junk having nothing to do with a reason.

Give this shit up already. She's dead. She died completely naturally. Feeding tubes are not natural.

court hearings under nineteen different judges tend to suggest that a fair and impartial hearing had been held. If there were nineteen seperate Supreme court rulings that stated Bush* did not have to have the votes counted to be made President I guess we would have to accept it. but one trial that was condemned by virtually evcery single attorney that bothered to look at the case would suggest something was amis. We either live in a land ruled by Law and Order or we all buy guns and have Militia patrol our borders..... D'oh