- How do you know who the murderers are and who the innocent people are with 100% certainty?
- Who the hell has asked for a “death penalty for the innocent?”
- It is hypocritical to say we must “err on the side of life” when one has never once taken that precaution when it comes to executions (or starting wars, for that matter).
Al Haig? Good idea! “As of right now, I’m in charge here… at the hospice”
Bricker: are you aware that the state appeals court agrees with you on this standard AND found that there was still convincing evidence that in this case her wishes were not to be maintained?
Here’s their reasoning:
Quoted from here:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
I would have a judicial system to try a person for their crimes, and would not execute them unless the case against them is proven beyond a shadow of doubt.
No-one has asked for a “death penalty for the innocent”. Not sure where you got that from.
Once again, it is not hypocritical to support the death penalty for murderers, and life for the innocent.
It is hypocritical when the evidence against the murders was adduced during trials at which the murderers were represented by underpaid, overworked, underqualified lawyers, and when there is evidence that similar trials under similar circumstances have produced result we now KNOW to be wrong, by virtue of DNA testing unavailable at the time of the original trial.
Yes, except that I would have found that the original trial judge abused his discretion. He (Judge Greer) found Michael Schiavo more credible than Terry’s friend Diane Meyer when resolving testimony about what Terry would have wanted. He specifically noted that Diane’s testimony seemed credible, but then discounted it after Diane related that she and Terry had discussed Karen Ann Quinlan in 1982. Diane related the conversation about Quinlan as being in the present tense. Judge Greer, noting that Quinlan had died six years prior to that conversation, pronounced himself “mystified” that their conversation would have referred to Quinlan in the present tense, and, as a result, he dismissed Meyer’s testimony as not credible.
The only problem with Judge Greer’s analysis is that Karen Ann Quinlan was alive in 1982. She died in 1985. The 1982 conversation discussing Quinlan WOULD HAVE BEEN SPOKEN IN THE PRESENT TENSE. His only reason for finding Meyer less credible than Schiavo was factually worng.
Based on that, sitting as an appellate judge, I woulod have found that Judge Greer took implied judicial notice of a “fact” that was untrue, and abused his discretion when he found Michael Schiavo more credible than Diane Meyer.
- Rick
Violating someone’s right to refuse medical intervention is not promoting “life for the innocent”, it is the act of an overbearing government that oversteps its constitutional power to control the lives of individuals against their will.
And how would you ensure that such a system would be impervious to error. Are you aware of the number of people who who were convicted “beyond a shadow of a doubt” only to be later proven innocent?
I got it from you, numbnuts. Read your own posts.
There. You just said it again. Where are you getting this “life for the innocent” bullshit? What does it have to do with the conversation?
The Schiavo case is about an individual’s right to decline life support if he or she should ever become brain dead.
Your president is a hypocrite because there was always some chance of error in execution he provided over as governor AND because he has more than shown that he has no qualms at all about taking innocent life if it suits his personal agenda.
As to the federal government, I agree.
If the state of Florida had decided that Ms. Schiavo should continue to be fed, I would not acknowledge any violation, constitutional or otherwise.
Agreed!! Fortunately, that’s not what’s happening here.
Quinlan was disconnected from her respirator in 1976 but kept breathing anyway. That’s probably what confused the judge.
But I think it’s a moot point because three separate people testified about Terri had made far more recently and within the context of a traumatic exoerience with her grandmother. So Greer was not finding for credibility of Michael Schiavo over Meyer but for three different witnesses to more recent statements. It also needs to be said that the testimony of a spouse would naturally always carry more weight than the testimony of some casual acquaintance from many years before. It is no abuse of discretion to decide that a husband knows his wife better than a coworker does, especially if no motive whatever can be found for the husband (and the other witnesses) to lie and no dishonesty or deception has ever been shown. Even if the judge made a mistake about Meyer’s credibility based on an erroneous assumption about a timeline, there is still enough reason to find for the credibility of the more recent statements made by Terri Schiavo and for a strong assumption that a husband knows his wife better than a casual friend.
That’s exactly what’s happening here. The eggplant doesn’t want the tubes. The government wants to force the eggplant to keep the tubes against its will.
Present company excluded, of course.
I want to apologize for the above. I got carried emotionally carried away.
Terri Schiavo decided before she became incapacitated that she did not want to be kept artificially alive as a vegetable. The question of Terri’s wishes has been adjudicated ad nauseum for 15 years and 19 judges have ruled that she would not want her body kept alive in this manner. The government does not have a right to interfere with that choice.
No, the husband doesn’t want his wife to have the tubes. The parents and siblings want Terri to have the tubes. The government is allowing the parents to file suit in district court so the case can be heard…again.
If Terri had made her wishes more clear, we’d never have heard of her. Tube removal happens a lot, with no fanfare, as we all know.
Don’t worry, eventually you’ll get your wish 
If this is true, it won’t take long for the district court to decide with the husband. The supreme court will refuse to hear, and it will be over.
It has, twice. The Schindlers are trying for a do-over-over-over-…repeat ad infinitum
What you seem to be missing is this creates a precedent for the Federal Goverment to intrude even more into areas where the Constitution does not authorize it to go. It is far more dire than this single case. It is frightening to see how much this administration and the current Republican Congress is willing circumvent the Constitution for their purposes.
Funny how Bush signed a law in 1999 that gave the hospital the power to yank the tube, even over the objections of parents.
But only if they can’t pay, so that’s just fine and dandy.
I could have sworn I hit “submit,” but evidently not…
Didn’t the State of Florida do just this in passing “Terry’s Law,” which was subsequently struck down by a unanimous decision of the Florida Supreme Court as violating the Florida Constitution (based on the separation of powers contained in the Florida Constitution, and staying silent on the question of whether Terry Schiavo should live or die)?