It must be nice for them, being rid of that whole pesky "checks and balances" thing.

yea and getting rid of their conscious at the same time.  Convenient eh?

It must be nice for them, being rid of that whole pesky "checks and balances" thing. yea and getting rid of their conscious at the same time. Convenient eh?

VERY!

here's the situation as best i understand it. florida is one of a growing number of states to enact a body of law (supposedly one that is fairly straightforward and relatively well constructed)to deal with situations like that of terry schiavo. her parents have spent 13 years, unsuccessfully trying to have michael schiavo removed as her legal guardian. the court-appointed guardian ad litem summarizes those cases (after prefacing his summary with two excerpts from by scotus justice scalia--i've italicized them--in rejecting a cert application for a similar case from missouri) as follows:

I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide - including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life-and-death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable. (emphasis added) Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497, U.S. 261 (1990)

And while he might not agree with a particular state's method for addressing a matter – he not only defers to the states – but further admonishes us to avoid the politicization of legislation in these matters:

I am concerned, from the tenor of today's opinions, that we are poised to confuse that [497 U.S. 261, 293] enterprise as successfully as we have confused the enterprise of legislating concerning abortion - requiring it to be conducted against a background of federal constitutional imperatives that are unknown because they are being newly crafted from Term to Term. That would be a great misfortune. Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497, U.S. 261 (1990)

In this context, it is vital to realize that Florida Statutes, Florida Rules of Evidence, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Florida case law were the basis for the past 13 years of litigation and conclusions of law in Theresa's case.

...A legal analysis of the tens of thousands of pages of documents in the case file, against the statutory legal guidelines and the supporting case law, leads the GAL to conclude that all of the appropriate and proper elements of the law have been followed and met. The law has done its job well. The courts have carefully and diligently adhered to the prescribed civil processes and evidentiary guidelines, and have painfully and diligently applied the required tests in a reasonable, conscientious and professional manner. The disposition of the courts, four times reviewed at the appellate level, and once refused review by the Florida Supreme Court, has been that the trier of fact followed the law, did its job, adhered to the rules and rendered a decision that, while difficult and painful, was supported by the facts, the weight of the evidence and the law of Florida.

here's a link to the guardian ad litem's report Link

when the congress convened last weekend to enact legislation to provide the schindlers with an opportunity to be heard by a federal court, they were the ones who were outta line. federal courts--as scalia pointed out--are not a place where one goes after losing a family law case to start all over again. if that became a precedent, there would obviously be no need for state courts except as a legal rehearsal hall.

(obviously there are times when a state law violates federal law or the constitution or when state/federal law are both applicable to the same situation, but this aint one of those)

furthermore, neither the congress nor the president has any constitutional authority to assign cases to the judiciary nor to tell the judiciary how and when to act. in that respect this is the equivalent of a bill of attainder--a law declaring someone guilty of a crime (expressly forbidden by the constitution).

this whole thing was a scam and now those who perpetrated it are doing their best to confuse the issue by blaming judges. for example, congressman patrick mcchenry (r nc)said: "We passed a law that specifically is worded for this case. Yet those judges aren't even talking about our original intent from Congress. What we have here is an out-of-control judiciary."

here's what was clearly intended (since it is part of the text of the bill mchenry et al wrote, enacted and bush signed):

"Any parent of Theresa Marive Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act... The District Court shall entertain and the determine the suit without any delay... 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."

which is exactly what federal judge whitmore did. he accepted the schindler's pleading. only because he found it without merit, that was it.

if they intended the judge had to let the schindlers win, they shoulda said so. only that woulda definitely violated the constitution so they did what they did and are now blaming the courts.

it's all grandstanding and head grandstander tom delay (who, intentionally or otherwise, was a little less caught in the lights over his own problems) adding more of the same when the scotus refused to hear the case:

"Sadly, Mrs. Schiavo will not receive a new and full review of her case as the legislation required. I strongly believe that the court erred in reaching its conclusion and that once again they have chosen to ignore the clear intent of Congress."

if any of these pricks had an iota of humanity or gave a fuck about anyone but themselves, they coulda at least spent the time passing a bill permitting someone to toss about 10 ml of fentanyl into terri's last feeding.

(sorry for goin on a rant here. and even sorrier if i missed your point. and sorriest most of cuz i couldnt think of anything even wryly absurdly blackly funny to say that might make all this a lil easier to take)

#3 by kingbee

I admire your tenacity. And you are way off base on the response. you are true to your ideals, yet you still miss the point.

She is dead. Go home. There is nothing we can do now.
"It is finished". You won. Dont revel in that. You are not that kind of person.

Sleep well tonight.

You won

well now we got somethin absurd to work with. nobody won. least of all me.

"well now we got somethin absurd to work with. nobody won. least of all me."

Not to say that you wanted her to die, per se, but am I mistaken to think that how things have progressed aren't the way you think they should have? At the beginning of this ordeal it seemed like, over and above the "morphine vs. starvation" semantics, there were two groups here at JU. Those who wanted the courts order to proceed, and those who didn't.

In that light, you won. In reality, we all lost, because this creates precedent for it to be done to other people who may or may not fit the bill, and whose families may or may not care.

Coming from a medical background, my concern is the consequence this case will have on similar cases or patients of mine, who due to their inability to express themselves normally may be labeled as being in a Persistently Vegetative State,and whose actual decision to survive maybe overridden by a legal guardian for expediency's sake.

I had discussed in a similar thread that the label Apallic Syndrome/PSV/Coma Vigile is open-ended and most of the the time, the return of awareness to the patient's environment is inconspicuous (the point in time when the patient is not in a PVS anymore)and verifiable by close clinical monitoring.(Evoked Potential Studies are currently experimental).

Would this now mean that for such patients (even for just the state of Florida),no option could be availed of to at least verify whether the vegetative state has been transcended and focus should be directed at communicating with the patient?

Assuming that the process of law has been diligently followed in form,shouldn't there be now a need to amend the law this time
by considering the input not just from the lawyers but also from medical specialists dealing with such conditions?

Otherwise,it would seem to be as a disturbing blanket condemnation of handicapped people, which is where I place a patient who has transcended the vegetative state,becomes aware of his/her environment, but is unable to normally express her/hinself.

Otherwise, why bother putting in time and resources even in research in rehabilitating brain-damaged patients when the issue would've been already legally settled?

(obviously there are times when a state law violates federal law or the constitution or when state/federal law are both applicable to the same situation, but this aint one of those)

And just as obviously congress thought it was in violation of the constitution or they would not have convened. Whether the judges like it or not. Congress makes the laws and it's up to the judges to rule on it's constitutionality and enforcement.

am I mistaken to think that how things have progressed aren't the way you think they should have?

i'm somewhat confused. i guess drguy is saying she's figuratively dead cuz according to abcnews as of monday @ 2:26am pst or gmt-8, she's still alive and they've finally set her up with a morphine drip (which is what they should have done--at very least) right from the jump.

since spring of 97 when i first heard about ms schiavo's sitation til now, i havent felt things were going the way they should nor do i now. life, death, catastrophic illness and family relationships are each and in combination more than difficult enuff without anyone adding to the burden. progress has nothing at all to do with this.

a couple years ago i had the unenviable experience of having to break up a fist fight between members of a normally fairly close family over who was gonna get what from the estate of a parent who was in apparently good physical health at that time altho beginning to show signs of alzheimer's (one of the very few times in my life when cops showed up somewhere and wanted to talk to me cuz i appeared to make more sense than anyone else present). the whole thing is/was about as alien to me as attempting to fly to the moon as is what's been going on in florida--only to the power of 1000.

Whether the judges like it or not. Congress makes the laws and it's up to the judges to rule on it's constitutionality and enforcement

reread what i said again please; congress cannot legally order a court to take a case nor tell a judge how to rule.
this isnt a failure of the judiciary; it's a scam by members of congress. read the bill they enacted; even if youre wearing your bush-colored lenses you cant miss it.

Assuming that the process of law has been diligently followed in form,shouldn't there be now a need to amend the law this time by considering the input not just from the lawyers but also from medical specialists dealing with such conditions? Otherwise,it would seem to be as a disturbing blanket condemnation of handicapped people, which is where I place a patient who has transcended the vegetative state,becomes aware of his/her environment, but is unable to normally express her/hinself.

the impression i get is that medical professionals were fairly well involved in the process of crafting both the florida and texas laws. here's a link to ms schiavo's gal's report Link which includes (near the middle..it's fairly long)an analysis of the florida law.

here's a link to an article by thomas mayo who is one of a number of co-authors of that legislation (he's an associate professor of law at smu and adjunct associate professor of internal medicine at u-t southwestern medical school; he teaches courses in health care law, bioethics, medical-legal humanities, constitutional law, family law, administrative law, and legislation)
Link

and here's a link to the full text of the texas law. Link

i'd be very interested in your take on these after you've hadda chance to check them out

Thanks for the comments, everyone. I'm busy right now, but I'll respond later tonight.

When did Republicans become so pro-judiciary is my question. Bush made fun of Kerry and Edwards for being a couple of lawyers, and now he's wanting to stir the judicial pot with his own pet "right to life" frivolous lawsuit.

He even came back from vacation to do it.

They seceded from the government in 1803 when justice John Marshall established the super-constituional concept of judicial review.

In effect, he asserted that the courts could rule acts of the legislative and executive as unconstitutional -- effectivley a veto with no override.  At first, this super-veto only applied to federal law but eventually it seeped into state matters as well.

Both parties are very guilty of taking advantage of this unconstitutional judicial power. Nowadays we complain about "liberals" doing it but 70 years ago it was "conservative" forces taking advantage of it.