Text 10298, 59 rader
Skriven 2005-03-26 15:39:21 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
  Kommentar till text 10288 av EARL CROASMUN (1:275/311)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
Hey, EARL.

 EC>> Years ago, the Florida courts went through a full set of proceedings
 EC>> and determined that it was HER wish.  His actions as guardian are
 EC>> simply following through on her wishes, so there is no need to ever
 EC>> get to the point of deciding whether HE should have the power to make
 EC>> the decision.

 EC> -> Even convicted murderers get a federal review before a state can
 EC> -> execute  them.  This is all that the president and congress asked
 EC> -> for. Instead what the federal judicial folks did was to thumb their
 EC> -> respective noses.

 EC> That is not what they SAID they wanted.  They said they wanted the
 EC> decision to go the other way at the federal level.  But all they were
 EC> willing to do in the law was to give a federal court jurisdiction over
 EC> a state decision.

Their official request was for the federal courts to look into and make sure 
that the state of Florida's execution of Terry was constitutional.  Every US 
citizen has a right to such a lookesee.

 EC> That creates an awful precedent, but it accomplishes nothing.

I don't see that it creats a precedent.  Nor do I see that if the federal 
courts were to do as they were asked it accomplishes nothing.  Perhaps it 
means little to you if Florida kills this woman, but, personally, I would 
like to see that it was done in a constitutional manner - that her rights 
were protected.  After all, she is a citizen of the United States of 
America.  So am I, and I don't like that status to be degraded.

 EC> What
 EC> they overlooked is the fact that, under federal law, they cannot get a
 EC> temporary restraining order unless they show some prospect of winning
 EC> at a full hearing.  The federal judiciary is properly ruling that the
 EC> parents don't have even a faint chance of winning in federal court.
 EC> Congress rigged the rules, but stopped short of trying to rig the
 EC> outcome.

Of course you could argue that her case could be heard early next year - 
after she has been dead for several months.  What kind of justice is that?

 EC> I ran across an interesting comment on a legal blog last night.  I
 EC> haven't looked at the judge's ruling in 2000 yet to see if I agree, so
 EC> right now it is just "interesting."  His view was that for the last
 EC> five years the husband's opinions, preferences, and desires have been
 EC> completely irrelevant.  THe judge ruled (and has been upheld on every
 EC> appeal) that removal of the feeding tube was TERRI's preference.  If
 EC> the husband were to step down as her guardian, in fact if the husband
 EC> were to publicly declare that HE wanted the tube reinserted, it would
 EC> make no difference at all since his preference would not legally trump
 EC> HER preference.  So all the public vilification of the husband has been
 EC> for show and legally irrelevant.

You know for a fact that this was her preference?


--- Fidolook Lite FTN stub 
 * Origin: Procrastinate NOW, don't put it off for tomorro (1:379/1.6)