Schiavo Thread Part Deux

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Imran is hardly an expert.

[Ned]

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

Odin, I am a lawyer. Irman is a law student. I am admitted to practice to two states, several federal circuits and the Supreme Court of the United States. I have been practicing law for nearly thirty years. I have been a member of the Board of Directors of three national law associations because my peers voted for me.

How does Imran's opinion trump mine?

[Sava]

because Imran is right and you are Ned

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
How does Imran's opinion trump mine?

Because he's correct in his interpretation, and you are quite wrong in yours.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


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.

There is a difference between courts reviewing a record and a direct attack on a judge and/or a guardian. The question of bias or conflict of interest is not before the appellate courts.

[Odin]

because Imran is right and you are Ned

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
How is this a federal issue?

That is a good question. The only possible answer is that Terry is being denied substantive due process, IMHO.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Odin, I am a lawyer. Irman is a law student. I am admitted to practice to two states, several federal circuits and the Supreme Court of the United States. I have been practicing law for nearly thirty years. I have been a member of the Board of Directors of three national law associations because my peers voted for me.

And just about clueless about Constitutional law, especially in this area, unfortunetly.

[Ned]

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

See my answer above. However, to the extent that there is a federal issue, the Feds should not be bound by the record below.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned


That is a good question. The only possible answer is that Terry is being denied substantive due process, IMHO.

well considering this has been adjudicated for over seven years, I doubt that duck would float

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
because Imran is right and you are Ned

Iram has a right to his opinion. I agree. But it is also natural for two lawyers to disagree. There is a saying that one lawyer in a town cannot make a money. But with two lawyers, both can become rich.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The only possible answer is that Terry is being denied substantive due process, IMHO.

If that were the case, the federal courts would have taken it up, because it mostly likely was removed by Schinder's lawyers. If there was a due process issue, it would have been heard and decided already, and there wouldn't have needed another law by Congress specifically to hear this case again.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Because he's correct in his interpretation, and you are quite wrong in yours.

Perhaps. But he does not win this argument because he is an expert and I am not.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


That is a good question. The only possible answer is that Terry is being denied substantive due process, IMHO.

And yet the Federal courts, when they did look at this case before this new abomination of a law, could not find any issues which would indicate that her due process was violated.

That is the point- no court that has reviewed the original decision has found any reason to overturn it. If there were any substantial problems in the decision, it would have been overturned long ago under the glare this case has had.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The only possible answer is that Terry is being denied substantive due process, IMHO.

If that were the case, the federal courts would have taken it up, because it mostly likely was removed by Schinder's lawyers. If there was a due process issue, it would have been heard and decided already, and there wouldn't have needed another law by Congress specifically to hear this case again.

Imran, tragically, the Shindler lawyers did not raise this issue on the first pass before the Federal Courts.