Schiavo Thread Part Deux

[Ned]

And just where is the NOW on this? After all, this women is being killed by her husband who seems to have adverse interests.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned
And just where is the NOW on this? After all, this women is being killed by her husband who seems to have adverse interests.

well I think they are aware of the facts, not the RW propaganda aimed at slandering Michael Schiavo, to make him out to be this greedy conniving murderer.

[Ned]

Imran, I think you are wrong on the "precedent" for future cases. The legislation clearly states that this statute and any results cannot be taken as precedent in future cases. It applies in this case and this case alone.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
well I think they are aware of the facts, not the RW propaganda aimed at slandering Michael Schiavo, to make him out to be this greedy conniving murderer.

Perhaps you have a point. Perhaps also they do not want to be associated with the evil Religious Right whom they have opposed for so many years on the issue of abortion.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
The legislation clearly states that this statute and any results cannot be taken as precedent in future cases. It applies in this case and this case alone.

And, as Imran clearly stated, the legislation cannot make any such determination--that's the role of the judiciary.

Basic civics:

Legislative branch - makes the law
Executive branch - enacts the law
Judicial branch - applies the law

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, I think you are wrong on the "precedent" for future cases. The legislation clearly states that this statute and any results cannot be taken as precedent in future cases. It applies in this case and this case alone.

Congress CANNOT decide what is used precedent and what is not used as precedent. That is an entirely judicial function. If the bill was upheld by a court, in 20 years, perhaps some court uses it as evidence of public opinion on the matter or some such.

Simply saying, don't use this for precedent doesn't work. Congress doesn't have that power. Never has.

[Ned]

Just now on TV it was reported that the hearing at the district court has been adjourned without decision.

Jeb Bush's general counsel also just said that the State is continue to pursue two appeals and is also researching everything that can possibly be done legally.

As I said before, the main obstacles to Terry seem to be Judge Greer and her husband Michael. If I were them, I would launch an all out attack on both.

[Odin]

Ned pwns himself by telling an expert on the topic (Imran) he's wrong.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
As I said before, the main obstacles to Terry seem to be Judge Greer and her husband Michael. If I were them, I would launch an all out attack on both.

How about the other judges that have all sided with Schiavo? And the Supreme Court?

And what kind of "attacks" would those be, and how would they remotely help this situation? Jeez, what a lunatic thing to say.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned

If I were them, I would launch an all out attack on both.

Yep, your evil.

[Ned]

Imran, I would like to see a case that upheld a precedent a case that by statute was declared not to be able to the basis for precedent.

Back to de novo, I am sure you would support the general prinicple that the Feds should not be estopped by the States on Federal issues. Res Judicata principles do not here, as there appears to be a principle of Supremacy involved.

[Sava]

How is this a federal issue?

[Boris Godunov]

That's just it, it isn't a Federal issue. It's clearly a state issue. Ned's argument is patently circular.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Odin
Ned pwns himself by telling an expert on the topic (Imran) he's wrong.

Imran is hardly an expert.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I would like to see a case that upheld a precedent a case that by statute was declared not to be able to the basis for precedent.

First show me another statute that said "this law cannot be used for precedent beyond this specific individual".

Precedent is the realm of the court and only the realm of the court. For Congress to try to tell the court it cannot use a law for precedent is beyond their power. The only way Congress can impact precedent is to pass a law that goes opposite of current precedent (if that is constitutional.. such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was struck down).

Back to de novo, I am sure you would support the general prinicple that the Feds should not be estopped by the States on Federal issues.

If the case is finished then they most definetly should be. You cannot relitigate a case based on some other issue when the litigation has finished on another issue. If you don't bring it up originally (or are rebuffed by the federal court when you do), you are estopped from bringing it up later.

Think Ned. Civil rights law is already a federal law. If the federal courts are allowed to listen to federal issues on the case de novo based on federal law, and if res judicata does not apply here, why didn't the parents go do that before Congress passed their law? Congress doesn't have to pass a law for a person to challenge on civil rights law.

The answer is that Congress has passed an unconstitutional law. If the court is not bound by res judicata, this Schaivo law would be unnecessary to bring this into federal court.