Bush signs emergency law to preempt state courts ref Terry Schiavo

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Dissident
Where can I find unbiased history of what happened here? I have been reading some pretty nasty stuff the husband did, but I'm not sure I can believe this stuff. I'm curious of the hole history of this thing. A timeline of sorts.

You are providing him with two biased histories, which is what those links mostly point to.

[Drake Tungsten]

And you're providing him with one history that is so undetailed (probably in an attempt to avoid the appearance of bias) that it is of little use to anyone who wants to go beyond a cursory understanding of the situation. I guess which is better is a matter of personal preference...

[GePap]

The law is probably going to rightly get slapped down, and the Florida ruling will stand, the Terry's kidneys will give out and she wil die quietly, and the right to life hypocrites in the Repug party and their zealots on the street will have to move on to make someone else a test case.

Hopefully none of these nuts will turn violent.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yeah, let's hope no one gets killed...

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Yeah, let's hope no one gets killed...

I'm hoping you did that for a laugh, cause you got one.

ACK!

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Yeah, let's hope no one gets killed...

D'OH

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Yeah, let's hope no one gets killed...

Let Terry Schiavo die already. Who gives a **** what you or anyone else thinks? That is the basic point of this case, I, you, nor anyone else should have a say in this save the immidiate people involved, and given they disagreed, the courts had to decide, and they decided to let her die (and no, she won;t suffer pain, nor hunger pangs nor any of that bull****).

If any side is filled with self-righteous, arrogant, selfish moralists trampling on people's rights are the "pro-lifers" in this case. I Do hope this comes and bites them in the ass, and I think there is a good chance it will- people don;t like politicians getting involved in something so terribly personal.

[Drake Tungsten]

Let Terry Schiavo die already.

If this was about letting her die, I wouldn't be up in arms about it. Unfortunately, it's about killing her, based on facts that are very much in doubt.

I'm hoping you did that for a laugh, cause you got one.

Tongue was planted firmly in cheek...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Let Terry Schiavo die already.

If this was about letting her die, I wouldn't be up in arms about it. Unfortunately, it's about killing her, based on facts that are very much in doubt.

Again.

Thankfuly, I have some faith in our court system unlike those that want to tear it down. IN the end, she will be allowed to die, against the wishes of so many misguided folks.

[Drake Tungsten]

Well, I have to give you credit; you're at least clever enough to stick solely to the legal issues surrounding this case. I wonder why you're one of the few to realize the moral argument is a losing one for the euthanization crowd...

[Sava]

DID YOU LOOK AT THE POLS? NOBODY WANTS THE GOVERNMENT DECIDING THESE THINGS DRAKE!!!

[Dis]

this is all I need to know. While I don't like the husband, I think the right thing to do is obvious.

"The majority of her cerebral cortex - the part of the brain that thinks and feels - has been destroyed and replaced by fluid," he said.

Unlike a patient in a coma, Dr Walker believes there is no hope for recovery for someone in Mrs Schiavo's condition - known as permanent vegetative state - because the cerebral cortex does not regrow once destroyed.

though I was hoping to find out exactly why she collapsed. That seems strange to me.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Well, I have to give you credit; you're at least clever enough to stick solely to the legal issues surrounding this case. I wonder why you're one of the few to realize the moral argument is a losing one for the euthanization crowd...

Because I don't really give a **** whether this woman lives or dies, as long as the rule of law is upheld, because society is made up of individuals but is bigger than them and more important. Which is why what Congress did is vastly more immoral than anything being done in this case in Florida, or by any of the parties- they are endangering the US system of checks and balances. Shame on them.

[Drake Tungsten]

though I was hoping to find out exactly why she collapsed.

I don't think they know for sure. Probably resulted from some unknown complication associated with her eating disorder.

As for the condition of her brain, I would be more inclined to believe Michael Schiavo's experts if they would actually do a modern brain scan on the woman. Her last scan was a CAT scan in 1996, which is not nearly as accurate as modern PET or MRI scans. I can't think of any good reason why they haven't done such a scan, which makes me suspicious.

Which is why what Congress did is vastly more immoral than anything being done in this case in Florida, or by any of the parties- they are endangering the US system of checks and balances. Shame on them.

Good post on the subject...

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/03/terri-schiavo-and-federalism.html

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Which is why what Congress did is vastly more immoral than anything being done in this case in Florida, or by any of the parties- they are endangering the US system of checks and balances. Shame on them.

Good post on the subject...

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/03...ederalism.html

Not really. The head of the judiciary committe in the house, during the debate, when explaining why THIS bill was needed explained that in our current system the federal courts could already issue a writ of habeous Corpus (spelling), but in doing so, they assume the facts as defined in the state court to be correct.

Hence, the basis for this law is to overturn the prior court case by giving the feds the right to ignore the finding of the lower court, and not rule simply on possible procedural mistakes or issue.

This si what makes the law an affront to our legal system. If we want to compare this to a criminal case- imagine Congress deciding that even thought someone has been found guilty by a state court, that we are going to say that a Federal court can now have jurisdiction of the case, and in making its decision, can ignore the rulings of the state court.... That is the valid comparison. And I hope you see why its wrong.