Freedom_from_Chains
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 12:47 AM
Original message |
So how has Terry Schiavo been denied due process? |
|
Seems to me, and I will admit I have not read extensively about this case, that the courts have already beat this thing to death. But the Republicans keep jumping up and down about no due process.
Does anyone here know the answer to that question?
|
magellan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 12:48 AM
Response to Original message |
1. I just wandered over to freeperland |
|
They are saying those courts are populated by activist judges. lol
|
Skittles
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
Left Is Write
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
29. They really like that nonsensical term, don't they? |
|
Edited on Mon Mar-21-05 07:23 PM by Left Is Write
Any judge who renders a decision with which they disagree is an "activist" judge.
Seems to me we have an "activist" Congress in place.
edited typo.
|
coloradodem2005
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 12:48 AM
Response to Original message |
2. This has been going on for 7 years so I really don't know. |
Mr_Spock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 12:48 AM
Response to Original message |
3. From what I can garner - this is a done deal in the courts |
|
These idiots in Congress have just overturned the "rule of law" and thusly the Constitution itself. Oh, well.
|
AutumnMist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 12:49 AM
Response to Original message |
4. Off the cuff guess - maybe comparing it to death penalty |
|
And think it should go through more channels. A stretch I know, but I have seen many stretches the last few years...
|
The Straight Story
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. Sorry hun, did it again :) |
|
Keep forgetting you are logged in on laptop under firefox...sigh...
|
LiberalFighter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
25. It has gone through enough channels |
|
It doesn't need the federal courts.
If there was any chance of Terri recovering I would say go for it. But she is just a shell.
The parents don't want to let go... they wouldn't let go if she was a mummy.
|
Bouncy Ball
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 12:49 AM
Response to Original message |
Freedom_from_Chains
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. That has been my take also |
|
Then if that is true this is complete insanity that is going on and is nothing more than a power grab to roll the judiciary into the executive branch along with the legislative branch.
I.E the creation of a dictatorship.
|
sandnsea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 12:54 AM
Response to Original message |
8. Supremes rejected it twice |
|
Once on an appeal from Jeb and last week on a Congressional appeal. They clearly think the State has jurisdiction. I guess it goes to some federal court for a ruling, then back up to the Supremes to be kicked back to the State court again. Ridiculous.
|
Lars39
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 12:54 AM
Response to Original message |
9. I think it means that (according to them) Terri's rights |
|
were violated because she was not represented by a lawyer. By claiming this, the spouse could automatically be kicked out of any decision making.
|
Freedom_from_Chains
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
11. And that is another thing I don't get |
|
Edited on Mon Mar-21-05 12:59 AM by Freedom_from_Chains
Since Terry has a legal husband, who has clearly communicated what her wishes are, how do the parents have any standing in the matter?
This whole thing just doesn't make any sense on the surface but like I posted earlier I have not really reviewed the case. I just figured it was another rally around the bible issue for evangelicals.
|
Lars39
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
19. I know. I don't understand their reasoning either. |
Freedom_from_Chains
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
16. However in the arguments presented |
|
It was clearly stated that the lower court had appointed and attorney ad-litum, that's an attorney the court appoints to represent the interest of those who are not capable of representing their own interest, so I just don't see how there can be any issue of lack of due process.
Unless there is something I am missing in that I am not real familiar with the intricacies of medical matters.
|
ultraist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
17. She had a court appointed Guardian ad Litem |
seventythree
(904 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
21. she had a guardian ad litum |
eaprez
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 12:57 AM
Response to Original message |
10. I would have thought she had a guardian appointed to represent |
|
her from the start.....if not then I can agree with their argument.
|
Floogeldy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 12:59 AM
Response to Original message |
12. Due Process is the opportunity of an individual to be heard . . . |
|
. . . in a legal proceeding.
We could give Terry Schiavo a chance to be heard, but the facts are that she can only moan. The law has provided that she can be heard through her husband. But Congress has chosen to ignore reality, logic, law, facts and the Constitution.
The "due process" argument is just another in a long line of twisted shit spewed by republicans since they started going after Clinton.
Wasn't a nuke supposed to go off in Washington?
|
Freedom_from_Chains
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
13. But Congress has chosen to ignore reality, logic, law, facts and the Const |
|
"The "due process" argument is just another in a long line of twisted shit spewed by republicans since they started going after Clinton."
And the thing that is interesting about that, which occurred in the Clinton impeachment hearings in the house and none of the media picked up on, was the Democrats pushing for a censure. The Republicans were adamant about not allowing that and for good reason, looking at it from there view.
If the R's had of allowed a censure it would have in effect created a bill of attainder, which I believe is an issue with the Schiavo vote tonight, and would have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supremes. Hence why the Democrats were pushing for it, would have been a slam-dunk.
However, I guess all that has changed now.
|
Floogeldy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #13 |
15. Upon what grant of federal power has Congress relied to pass this bill? |
|
Surely, the authority to confer jurisdiction upon lower federal courts is limited by the specific grants of power the people gave to a federal government upon ratification of the Constitution?
|
Freedom_from_Chains
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
|
As far as I can see this whole thing is an abomination.
|
seventythree
(904 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
22. well, that is their argument. |
|
we have the power to grant federal courts' jurisdiction -- and we are granting this to them. Terri has had due process, so I can see nothing more here than the republicans don't like the state court decision. If the Oregon SC votes that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional -- (just heard the arguments on C-span last weekend so presume we are waiting for a decision) will Congress decide that their decision needs to go to the federal courts, too? That case is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, also.
|
Sandpiper
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
24. I know of no grant of federal power, that gives the Congress authority |
|
To confer jurisdiction upon a lower federal court for the sole purpose of usurping a state court decision.
Seems to me that this would trammel the 10th Amendment and violate the sovereignty of state courts over matters of state law.
|
amandabeech
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 01:23 AM
Response to Original message |
20. Father Schindler was just on CNN. He claimed that his claims |
|
had never been heard. I thought that there was a very thorough hearing in the Florida trial court several years ago in which the judge ruled that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that her wishes were that she not be kept alive in such a state. The ruling was appealed and affirmed by the appellate court and that the Florida Supreme Court, which the Bushes refuse to honor, declined to review the case. It sounds like due process to me.
|
seventythree
(904 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #20 |
|
parents trump spouses? There goes marriage.
|
Stand and Fight
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 05:42 PM
Response to Original message |
Donailin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 05:43 PM
Response to Original message |
27. What happens next? That's what I wanna know |
|
So the federal court will hear the case (when??) and most likely agree with the other 19 judges (how long will that take??)and rule in favor of Michael. Then what? What will congress do then? It will certainly suck up a news cycle or two. The radical right will then move to . . ?
|
Freedom_from_Chains
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
28. Well hopefully they will then move on to explaining |
|
why they have burnt up so much time and taxpaper money to further debate what had already been lawfully decided.
|
Donailin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-21-05 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
|
if they rule as the preceding judges have and she is taken off life support, then she will die in a matter of weeks if not less. What kind of circus can we expect then?
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 03rd 2024, 02:38 PM
Response to Original message |