Text 10305, 72 rader
Skriven 2005-03-26 18:00:12 av EARL CROASMUN (1:275/311)
     Kommentar till en text av ED CONNELL
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
 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.

That is not what the act did, and had it TRIED to do that it would have
been far more unconstitutional than it is.

The act said that IF "any parent" of hers brought a claim or suit
alleging that her rights were being violated, the claimant would have
legal standing and the US District Court would have jurisdiction.

From 1998 to 2005, the parents brought many legal actions.  Over and
over again, they lost.  There was never any determination that any right
was being violated.  And as far as I can tell there was never any
showing by the advocates of the congressional act that any rights
violation had been ignored or that the federal courts were unable to
already deal with violations of constitutional rights.

But the District Court followed the law, including section 3: "After a
determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the
District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may
be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the
Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding
or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain
her life."  Since the law was signed there have been several actions
taken to the district court.  Each one has been found to lack even the
minimal merit that would be required to justify a temporary restraining
order.  The parents don't have a legal leg to stand on in state court,
and congress just made that more clear when it funnelled the same issues
to the federal courts.


-> 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

Nothing has been done in an unconstitutional manner (except perhaps for
the possibly unconstitutional law that congress passed), Florida is not
going to "kill" anyone, and even though you didn't directly ask me it
DOES mean a great deal to me.


 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?

I know for a fact that the appropriate court went through the full due
process of law in determining that it was her preference, applying the
relevant law and court precedents.  That ruling has withstood all
appeals and all attempts to overturn it over the last five years.  It's
the law.  And although the parents have expressed disagreement with the
ruling, they are also on record as telling a judge that they would fight
the court order even if they were convinced that it WAS her preference.


--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:275/311)