That may not be true… I wish I had a cite for this, but I read somewhere in the deluge that Terry’s father had admitted under oath at one point, that he’d still be pursuing this course of action even if there was a living will. If that’s true, then this case is certainly about anything but Terry Schiavo’s wishes.
This was not his only reason. This issue was, in fact, granted a rare hearing by Greer in which he heard further arguments, and found that while he had erred, it was NOT the sole reason for finding Meyer less credible, and indeed was irrelevant to the reasoning used.
Judges make mistakes in their reasoning all the time. But not all mistakes are so important that they call for a rehearing or reconsideration of the case. Greer found that it was not so, and no higher court has disagreed with him or found that he abused his discretion in a way that fataly impacted his decision or caused him to violate due process. In fact, I don’t even believe that Terri’s parents are still making this argument.
I really don’t get the Fundy position on this. Ms. Shiavo is a soul trapped in a mound of useless meat. If she’s bound for Heaven, well, sooner the better, no? If there is some technical sin involved in hustling her on her way, I think the compassionate motivation would count for a lot in making an appeal to Judge Jesus. Very forgiving fellow, from all accounts.
Hee. I meant the International court–located in Brussels, no? (Haige? Hauge? Hell-I’m illiterate!)
The city named the Hague is co-capital of the Netherlands. There, at least I’ve accomplished something in all these threads.
<hangs head in shame>
how embarrassing.
:smack:
Yes, so the state of Florida has spoken. I don’t agree with the results, but they have spoken and that’s that.
That’s true. I said, “If I were an appellate judge…” I grant that others - who are actually judges - may not be persuaded by my reasoning. And I have read Judge Greer’s findings after the second hearing, and, frankly, found them self-serving. If the present tense business was not remotely dispositive, why did he devote several sentences to it in his original findings? Moreover, that was the ONLY item he pointed to as a reason for finding Meyer less credible than Schiavo. After the fact, he claims that it didn’t make a difference - I think that’s blatant ass-covering. He clearly relied on that “error” to distinguish the witnesses’ stories; you have only to read the original words to see that:
The joke, in case you’re wondering: “What is the state vegetable of New Jersey? Karen Ann Quinlan.”
Alas, no. It’s The Hague, capital “T” (or Den Haag, if you prefer the Dutch name. 
)
Wow just when I thought I’d stop participating in Bush-Bashing threads, our nutcase turnip-IQ Commander In Chief has to pull this shit?
As Cisco said:
*How many people did W. execute as the govenor of Texas?
*
Oh yeah, Dubya truly values the sanctity of life.
No wait … on second thought he does value it. Didn’t he keep his ass safely in the USA with about 0% chance of being his being sent to Vietnam while the war was going full tilt? He truly values the sanctity of life … his own !!!
And Dubya, while you are at it, why not visit the friends and relatives of the over 1,000 military men and women who died because of the war you started?
And as Kimstu said:
*I don’t see any way Bush could have let this go without seeming to undercut his brother and his supporters.
*
Sure, if we know anything about the Bush family, they sure as Hell help one another. Didn’t Dad help get “Dubya” into Yale ? … the Texas Nat’l Guard ? … the PRESIDENCY !!!
And isn’t “Dubya” one of them thar “keep Big Guvment outta my life” believers?
It’s nice to see the way he adheres to that belief. :rolleyes:
Man, it’s not his wish, the evidence says it’s her wish.
The city known as the Hague (or den Haag, if you prefer) made its wishes known that it prefer to be spelled with a small “t” ages ago. Amsterdam was just too stoned to remember.
Now that I’m no longer a Republican, I guess I can rail a little…
There’s been a lot of propaganda about “activist judges”.
Well, now that the court has come down on the side of narrow interpretation of the law and refusal to intervene, let’s see what the rhetoric is from the knee-jerk right regarding that decision.
Frankly, I don’t understand the allegedly “pro-life” stance of the Christian right on this matter. There is nothing in the Bible to support the idea that life should be extended as long as humanly possible.
Yeah, that’s the part I really don’t understand.
I read somewhere that they’d have to do surgery to get that tube back down her throat.
The poor woman has been kept barely alive for fifteen years so that her parents can flog their obsession, and now they want to invade her battered body yet again, and they claim this is somehow “pro-life”. There is no way in a million years I could even begin to understand how you could twist that around into a “pro-life” action.
The tube doesn’t go down her throat. It goes in through the abdomen, and directly into the stomach.
Look here for more info on tube-feeding, including photos. (Nothing too unsettling.)
What is hypocritical is for George W. Bush to have signed into law (as governor of Texas) a bill that allows a hospital to remove a patient from life support, even against the family’s wishes (See the post by yanceylebeef on page 1, and also the Los Angeles Times on 22 March 2005) and then approve a law to prevent it for Terry Schiavo. Of course, in the Texas case, the reason to pull the plug on the six-month-old baby was financial (the parents couldn’t afford the medical care), so perhaps that makes it more excusable in his eyes?
I’m sure that the next time this is about to happen in Texas, our president will rush back to the White House and try and convince Congress to pass a law allowing the federal courts to intervene.
Los Angeles Times article (free registration required, link may soon expire)
«At Texas Children’s Hospital, a 6-month-old boy, born with a fatal form of dwarfism in which his lungs were too small to support his small body, died shortly after his breathing tube was removed. His mother objected but could find no facility willing to care for the boy.»
IIRC this was recently too.
The same night Bush signed the bill
Life’s not so sacred to Shrub when it can’t pay the bills.
The law he signed regarding Terri did not, and does not prevent the removal of any patient from life support. Did you read it?
Look, George W. Bush is not a saint, nor is he perfect (yeah, I know, understatement of the day, blah blah blah). He’s done plenty of questionable things in the past. BUT this time, with the Terri law, what he did was not so bad.
Sure, it’s fun to jump down his throat for everything. But in this case I think some people are overreacting.
I can’t wait to hear you guys when W celebrates the birth of his first grandchild. “Hypocrite! Unbelievable! Shrub does it again! Acting like he cares about life when CLEARLY…” blah blah blah
Give it a rest.
Serious questions and substantial doubts? Well, all righty then! Get those soldiers out of Iraq now! Choose life! Before too many more of us have even more serious questions and substantial doubts!
I bet the families of the people who died because of Dubya’s notion that one loses all right to life when one enlists are just thrilled to be chipping in for fuel for Air Force One this past weekend.