Text 11048, 79 rader
Skriven 2005-04-04 00:06:51 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
  Kommentar till text 11038 av Jeff Binkley (1:226/600)
Ärende: where have real conservat
=================================
03 Apr 05 20:18, Jeff Binkley wrote to John Hull:

 JH>> JH>> AH>>Florida is one of more than 30 states in which one spouse 
 JH>> JH>> AH>>makes the decisions -- including those involving life and
 JH>> JH>> AH>>death  -- if the  other spouse becomes incapacitated.
 JH>> JH>> AH>>That's probably  why a Florida  court appointed Michael
 JH>> JH>> AH>>Schiavo as Terri  Schiavo's guardian after  she suffered
 JH>> JH>> AH>>cardiac arrest in 1990.

 JH>> JH>> JB> The issue wasn't Michael making a decision about Terri.
 JH>> JH>> JB> The  issues was  that the judge ordered her to be killed.
 JH>> JH>> JB> So far  we only do  that with convicted felons.  I am 
 JH>> JH>> JB> fine if the judge  had that said "I order  Michael's 
 JH>> JH>> JB> wishes be carried out".    No that problem whatsoever.  

 JH>> JH>>That's a distinction with no difference.  What the judge did 
 JH>> JH>>was follow not only the precedent set by prior appeals courts, 
 JH>> JH>>but he followed Florida statute law.  He had no other way to 
 JH>> JH>>go.  

 JH>> JB> It may not be a distinction to you but it is a huge one with 
 JH>> JB> me. With 
 JH>> JB> our activist courts as active as they are we need to reign 
 JH>> JB> them in  at 
 JH>> JB> every turn.  Every time we turn around they are devaluing 
 JH>> JB> life. In this 
 JH>> JB> case the judge ordered a death sentence.  You'll have to show 
 JH>> JB> me where 
 JH>> JB> this was allowed under Florida law.  Since euthanasia isn't
 JH>> JB> legal,  I 
 JH>> JB> find this sentence both troubling and questionable.

 JH>>I haven't kept that close of tabs on who posted what, but I do
 JH>>believe a couple of people have posted the relevant Florida statute
 JH>>since all this started.  Whether you agree with it or not, it is 
 JH>>the law, and from what I've seen, that is what the judge based his 
 JH>>ruling on, as well as the fact that several previous appeals were 
 JH>>found not to have merit. 

 JB> I read the judge's ruling.  He ordered the feeding tube and 
 JB> liquids 
 JB> removed from her.  I don't believe that falls within any state or 
 JB> federal statute.

 JB> Here's the actual ruling:

 JB> http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/031805habcorp.pdf

 JB> ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that absent a stay from the appellate
 JB> courts, the guardian, Michael Schiavo, shall cause the removal of
 JB> nutrition and hydration from the Ward, Theresa Schiavo, at 1:00 
 JB> P.M. on
 JB> Friday, March 18, 2005.



 JB> The point here is the judge didn't say that Michael could remove 
 JB> the tube, he said he will.    

Correct, and why did he say that?  Because the parents were seeking an
injunction, to *prevent* him from doing that, and there had already been a
ruling that he could several years before that - which ruling had been held up
and prevented by legal appeals without success.

What he actually said, in essence, was that there will be no more appeals, and
that Michael's request, as guardian, would be carried out immediately.

I'm not going to argue if that was right or wrong - obviously you have your own
ideas about that.  I'm only saying that you are putting a spin on what the
judge ruled that isn't there when taken in the context of a 15 year legal
battle.

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin: We are the Watchmen of our own Liberty! (1:379/1.99)