Ironies -

1. Michael Schiavo is living in sin with a woman, not his wife. He has has two children by that woman and now Michael wants to 'kill his wife" - that life isn't precious.

Even if that were the case, Michael is still a plus-one in the 'give life' category, non? Or are bastard children not precious in the sight of some?

2. Much has been made of Michael's latent rememberance of his wife's wishes.

And, the courts have said that a woman unable to speak for herself is subject to the statements of her husband regarding her intention.

What if Michael claimed that Terri would want to be artificially inseminated if she were bed-ridden, in PVS but otherwise healthy state, so that she could give life back to the world?

Would we be OBLIGATED to take Michael at his word? Would the Feminist/Constructionists make Terri carry a baby to term on Michael's say-so?

3. If Michael were truly a bad guy, in it for the buck, wouldn't he have taken a shot at the Schindlers. It'd be easy enough to do -

"Terri suffered from an eating disorder which caused her heart attack. Eating disorders are common in people who've been sexually abused in the house growing up. Here's an expert who agrees with me.

I'm not saying that she was, just that she could have been ... you know, sexually abused. By her family. Ask the experts.

Terri and I had a loving relationship"

That'd get a ball rolling.

4. What would happen if the humidity in Terri's room went up to, say, 99% ? And the sprinkler's went off every couple of hours?

_______________________________________

This is just a bad case all the way around.

So, now I can rightfully claim that anyone who cuts me off on the Kennedy has a deathwish as I chase them down and mercilessly beat them senseless in a bought of roadrage!

Ace, I gotta say, I love your site. But the all Terri all the time stuff is making me think about changing my homepage to something else. If the republicans keep beating on this issue, I'm seriously thinking of changing my voter registration. The way they're using Terri Schiavo as political football is disgraceful to say the least. It's a private matter and you and I have no say in what happens, and the freaking gov. of FL & the entire congress & Pres Bush should have kept thier fingers out of this. Just my 2 cents...but please go back to the funny/snarky stuff I love to read from you...

Quack. Quack quack quack. Quack quack quack quack quack.

Oh, McDirty ... don't you know it's those fricken bible-thumpers that won't drop this? Bush is under their THRALL. You know, Communists are anti-religion ... just a thought.

And, please, Ace ... how could you possible care about the plight of a brain-damanged woman? Can't you talk Michele Jackson or porn or something?

McDirty,

I've been posting one or two Terri stories a day since I realized it was hopeless.

Don't worry; she'll be dead soon enough.

Sarcasm on.

With all the talk about recognizing intermational laws, should the Vatican be worried about Terri's case?

The Pope's not felling too well. And he's Catholic.

Sarcasm off.

Interesting timeline based on info in USA Today

February 1993 - Michael gets money from lawsuit
February 14 1993 - Michael argues Terri's parents over money and says they will never see their daughter again.
Sometime soon after - Michael remembers Terri saying she wouldn't want to live on life support.

Probably just a coincidence.

Ace,
Re: impeachment of a trial lawyer
From a Fla. lawyer's blog:

Impeachment is a tool for removing public officials who have lost the public's trust through actions other than their judicial decisions. The route for correcting erroneous judicial decisions is the judicial appellate process.The Schindlers have availed themselves of that process time and again, and thus far the appellate courts have agreed that the law has been correctly followed here. So the trial judge's judicial decisions are not cause for impeachment, and I'm not aware of anything concerning other actions in his life that would merit even disapproval, let alone impeachment. Ultimately, there is a reason impeachment talk persists only at the outer fringes of this saga.

http://abstractappeal.com/archives/2005_03_01_abstractappeal_archive.html#111075220185617574

Read:
Re: impeachment of a trial judge (not lawyer)

How about a cite, instead of a blog opinion.

Ace:

Two other things our friends who fear the end of the country over this seem to forget:

1) Read your fucking Constitution. There's a passage that reads thus:

Article III, Section 2.2:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Ccourt shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

The italicized part (my emphasis) gives Congress the power to tell the Supreme Court what they cannot rule on. This allows Congress to tell the Supremes "fuck you, you cannot rule on this type of case."

2) Please read General Jackson's veto message on the Supreme Court's ruling and Congressional action on a central bank; it's quite appropriate:

It is maintained by the advocates of the bank, that is constitutionality, in all its features, ought to be considered as settled by precedent, and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of constitutional power, except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against the bank might be based on precedent. One Congress in 1791, decided in favor of a bank; another in 1811, decided against it. One Congress in 1815 decided against a bank; another in 1816 decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress, therefore, the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the States, the expressions of legislative, judicial and executive opinions against the bank have been probably to those in its favor as four to one. there is nothing in precedent, therefore, which if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me.

If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the executive and the court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.

So, in addition to the points you made about impeachment, the above two items, especially the first, are safety valves for an over-zelous judiciary. We are not a nation run by 9 oligarchs in black robes.

The importance of the second item, Jackson's Veto message, is that Supreme Court decisions should not rise to the level of settled consent of the law until the courts and the people through their elected representatives have shown concurrence on a given issue. And please don't lug in this hoarseshit about protected rights of the minority, because those are already enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Unless you believe that it is a fundamental right to die by starvation.

Supreme Court decisions that are horribly nasty, like the Dread Scott decition, played a key role in hurling this country into Civil War over slavery.

"The italicized part (my emphasis) gives Congress the power to tell the Supreme Court what they cannot rule on. This allows Congress to tell the Supremes "fuck you, you cannot rule on this type of case."

Um, while I agree completely that the relief act for Terri Schiavo was a valid exercise of that power, the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted after that text, so by the usual canons of construction, later in time governs. It does not seem to me that Congress could deprive an aggrieved party of ANY forum in which to litigate a question of federal law: they can take it away from the federal courts and leave the state courts with it, or vice-versa, but not both.

Oh, and as was the Fifth Amendment, placing due-process restrictions on Congress rather than the states.

Dave J:

I'm no lawyer, but I do read the Constitution. Doesn't the 14th amendment deal with Civil Rights? Passed on July 9, 1868, it seems to me that the first clause deals with the states not being allowed to pass laws that deprive freed slaves (citizens) of their rights without due process of law, the second part deals with voting apportionment to include new citizens and nullifies the counting of slaves as partial citizens, the third part bars certain citizens of the former Confederacy that were involved in the rebellion from holding office except with the consent of 2/3 of each house of Congress, and the fourth part deals with debts incurred durng the war, and makes claims for payment for loss of slaves null and void.

How does this overturn what is included in Aritcle III, Section 2.2? My constitution does not mention that this section was later overturned by the 14th Amendment.

Your input would be most appreciated.

Dave:

After having read your post again more closely, I guess you are speaking of specific cases dealing with specific individuals, while I was positing in the general when I mentioned "this type of case." I have assumed that the clause grants Congress the power to tell the Federal judiciary that they do not have jurisdiction on certain types of cases, and I didn't mean to posit that it gives Congress the right to deprive a specific citizen of their right to due process.

I hope I'm getting this right, and forgive my misinterpretation if I had done so.

Again, thanks for the thoughtful post.

It's judicially sanctioned murder, plain and simple. Does anyone know if there are plans to block Terri's immediate cremation when she dies? Given all the questions raised, I would think an autopsy would be in order. Not that we don't already know that she's being starved to death, but an examination of her brain and the purported broken bones etc. would have an impact one way or the other. In addition, perhaps her medical records could be released. Wishful thinking, but worth pursuing, I should think.

Not trying to be obtuse (I'm a natural), but why hasn't Congress passed a revised version of the Act to make explicit what they (Frist, Hastert, et al) say they thought was obvious, i.e. that the act was intended to restore the feeding tube until new hearings could be held "de novo" at the Federal court level?

OCBill:

Simple.

Because it's no-go de novo for Schiavo.

I guess we don't feel pain like they do.

Five stranded elk shot; they faced slow starvation

"Five of the animals were destroyed to avoid a slow painful death. " -- photo caption from story

Hello, this is my homepage.