Text 10311, 96 rader
Skriven 2005-03-26 20:16:43 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
  Kommentar till text 10305 av EARL CROASMUN (1:275/311)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
Hey, EARL.

 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.

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

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

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

So what is unconstitutional about this.

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

So what?

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

I don't get it.  It  is okay to kill this woman.  It is not as if no one is 
interested in taking care of her.  Why is everyone so axious to kill her. 
Also, I'd like the rationale behind the Florida judge's order that keeps her 
locked in that room and forbids anyone from taking still or movie pictures 
of her.

 EC> -> Perhaps it means little to you if Florida kills this woman,
 EC> -> but, personally, I would
 EC> -> like to see that it was done in a constitutional manner

 EC> Nothing has been done in an unconstitutional manner

You decide that, but it would be more comforting to me if there were a 
federal judge making sure that was the case.

 EC> (except perhaps for the possibly unconstitutional law that congress
 EC> passed), Florida is not going to "kill" anyone,

What do you call keeping someone from food and water?  If we did that to an 
inmate, we would say that he was killed.

 EC> and even though you
 EC> didn't directly ask me it DOES mean a great deal to me.

Yes?  And what does it mean to you?

 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
 EC>> been for show and legally irrelevant.

 EC> -> You know for a fact that this was her preference?

 EC> I know for a fact that the appropriate court went through the full due
 EC> process of law in determining that it was her preference, applying the
 EC> relevant law and court precedents.

You knowing that for a fact and a federal judges so ruling are quite 
different to me.

 EC> That ruling has withstood all appeals and all attempts to overturn it
 EC> over the last five years.  It's the law.

It is?  Who made this law?

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