MSNBC.com has it at the top of their site, although there's no article to accompany it yet.

Now there's an article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7293186/

Here's your link

I have to admit, I'm surprised. Not hopeful, exactly, but interested.

And considering that she hasn't eaten since the 18th, let's hope they up that stately judicial pace a little as well.

I'm with you, Sonetka. The poor woman is into her 13th day off the feeding tube. Let's have some faith in this ray of hope.

I just want to say good luck, and we're all counting on you.

'Fraid I'm going to come off as yet another "Christer" who was supposed to just sit there and "take that" as a political defeat when the pro-death crazies won the right to murder an innocent woman, but I'm absolutely amazed that Terri has survived this long in the first place without food or water. Un-fucking-believable.

Thank the Lord and praise Jesus, amen, hallelujah, and whatever else we redneck Bible-thumpers are supposed to say... anyone else have a better explanation?

I'm praying for her tonight, and I hope everyone else here is too.

God, for once, let the courts make the right decision.

to the Almighty, I say: Thankyou.
*********************************

to the Judges, i say:
Dont. Fuck. up.

While we wait for further news, here are a few of the most obvious lines to consider. Y'know, since we're all hateful religious nutjobs and stuff.

"I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."
- Matthew 25:42-45

I dunno, Ace; I'm aware of your views on Colorado v. Harlan, but sometimes there are worse things our courts could do than read the Bible.

I am not a doctor, but its seems to me that even if they started re-hydrating Terri right now, it would be a miracle if she lasted a month. If you're going to pray for a miracle, at least pray big, like Terri stabilizes, and a few days later, Michael Schiavo (or George Felos, or Judge Greer) walks in, which prompts Terri to get out of bed and knee him in the groin, shattering his testicles. At this point, that seems about as likely as Terri surviving (neglecting the fact that God rarely answers prayers to shatter other's testicles).

Given that, I am shocked that the 11th Circuit would hear this case now. There is a great chance that any relief they might grant to the Schindlers will be mooted by Terri's death, causing the 11th Circuit will come out of this looking like heartless bastards for denying the Schindlers a hearing until it could do them no good. "Sentence first -- verdict afterwards."

Why doesnt President Bush nominate Terry to be ambassador to some foreign country in a recess appointment. Maybe someplace like Canada.

On second thought, maybe that should be others' testicles. This fills my daily quota for pedantic grammar corrections that no one cares about.

Damn!

If only the Shindlers had thought of dragging a media whore, pot-stirring, self-proclaimed 'reverend' into the mix earlier.

Un-fucking-believable.

Hmmm. You don't suppose he'll raise much actual hell about this, do you? Or, do you suppose that he's really been applying pressure to those in charge?

I'm not religious in any way - not in the organized religion sense of the word, more like a dreaded secular humanist, lol!, but I am hoping against hope, you might even say I'm doing a little praying here.

This would take a miracle.

To the Appeals Court that took so long to come to this conclusion. Very............. Loose......... Shit!!!!!!!

Wow, who knew Jesse was one of those right-wing anti-choicers?

Again, the majority of you have missed the point. The husband is the legal guardian, his guardianship has been reviewed numerous times for any disqualifying factors. The state courts have ruled each time in his favor. If you don't like what they ruled on, then change Florida law (and maybe the other 49 states, too). We continually rant against activist judges sticking theire respective noses where they don't belong, except when we don't agree with the outcome. The height of hipocracy....Please make yourselves smart on the case from Day 1, study the GAL reports, and think objectively for once on this.

Ammobob, I bet you won't miss this point.

Fuck you, you death-loving cocksucker. I hope you have a wife who pops out kids for your worst enemy while you lie in a hospice bed and thirst to fucking death.

I hope I'm wrong but it's my understanding that all they can only look at is just the same exact data that was included in the first trial over again without bringing anything else into it. (The de novo would have let them look at new stuff.) That's why it just keeps going in circles; looking at the same old facts again and again, ignoring all new and alternate facts, and they can find no way in which any law was broken technically. (Forget justice.)

That said, I pray to God I'm totally wrong and that this is the miracle of JUSTICE that Terri needs to get her out from under the control of the ghouls.

Sue Dohnim

I second that.

ammobob wrote: "The husband is the legal guardian"

Unfortunately true. The point you, in turn, are missing is that Michael has zero moral standing as any sort of guardian. He is Terri's de facto ex-husband, and his "girlfriend," Jodi, is his de facto wife. By granting him spousal privileges in re Terri, when he would certainly have the same privileges in re Jodi, the courts have effectively legalized an act of bigamy.

Michael has a clear and undeniable conflict of interest. Whether his motives are base or noble is utterly irrelevant. We, and our elected representatives, claim that we won't tolerate even the appearance of impropriety in political fundraising; is a human life somehow less important? I'd like to think not.

That a large number of judges have failed to recognize such elementary facts is proof that the legal system has failed Terri and her real family. Abysmally.

"We continually rant against activist judges sticking theire respective noses where they don't belong, except when we don't agree with the outcome. The height of hipocracy"

The term "activist judges" refers to judges who attempt to write new laws from the bench, or invent new "emanations" they see in the "penumbra" of the Constitution.

(Personally, I think if you're seeing a penumbra around our Constitution, you should cut down on the LSD.)

The right to life pending due process is established in the Fifth Amendment, and Terri is not charged with any capital crimes, unless those now encompass being brain-damaged.

Florida's state laws don't matter. In this country, executing anyone without due process is murder. And pointing that out is not hypocrisy. It is merely the truth.

The husband is the legal guardian, his guardianship has been reviewed numerous times for any disqualifying factors. The state courts have ruled each time in his favor.

Snowy has it exactly right. The "numerous" courts you mention have only reviewed the legal decision in light of facts, but the basis for those factual conclusions have never been examined on appeal. Higher courts can review the law, but not the facts.

The initial factual finding of her "husband's" fitness as guardian was supposed to be reviewed de novo. The federal trial court basically refused to do that.

As far as the federalism argument goes, I agree that it is probably not the best idea in the world to have all authority becoming increasingly centralized, but honestly, that ship has sailed. Federalism is practically a dead letter. It meant something once, but not now. The hypocrisy lies with the left, which has been clamoring for federal intervention for going on 100 years now. Suddenly, they're all federalists. Go figure.

Besides, the federal courts have had the power to review state court criminal cases forever; I don't see why a civil case where the result is death should be any different.

Also, what kind of "guardian" not only allows someone to die, but takes affirmative steps to prevent ANYONE ELSE from giving her life-sustaining care? Some guardian.

Don't get me wrong -- I actually support the principle of euthanasia, when properly implemented. There is such a thing as a merciful death. This isn't one of those cases. Terri isn't suffering (or wasn't until she was starved for 13 days). And her parents have been begging for the opportunity to take over her care.

It is monstrous that someone -- anyone -- can be deemed to have the right to PREVENT another person (who is NOT suffering pain) from receiving basic care that her willing relatives want to provide.

It's insane.

George at Snapshot:

Someone with a really sort of dirty moniker (something about Bob Dole's member, I don't know why someone would do such a thing) posted this on the Alan Keyes thread. Let me know your thoughts on this line of thinking, if you would be so kind. I am no lawyer, but it sure does seem reasonable:

I think the Powerline boys had the most sobering point I've seen in a long time about this whole issue. Hinderaker basically said that the first time the Schindlers took this case to Judge Greer, they had no idea what they were facing in Felos. Mr. Schiavo had hired himself a really skilled lawyer (flush with cash at the time), while the Schindlers' first attorney was reallly in over her head.

Hindrocket's basic point was that once the initial case is ruled upon, the appelate process basically looks to the initial court ruling to find holes in the initial case. In his words (paraphrasing), the lower court's ruling is "set in concrete" and can only be undone if there's a problem with that ruling on procedural grounds. If the initial case was sound, it doesn't matter how many appeals, the first case will stand.

Now, being a cock, I certainly am no lawyer, but this seems to me to be some really strong reasoning. It sort of puts these numbers in perspective when people start rattling off how many times this case has been tried on appeal and the Schindlers have lost. They do that to prove that the vast majority of judges have agreed with the husband, when all those appeals mean is that the lower court case was argued fairly, and thus no grounds for appeal. But argued fairly does not mean that the Schindlers had their first, best shot.

Sue D: Although I appreciate your zeal, and mostly agree with you, I certainly would hope that you would wish joy and hope upon anyone, even those that harbor beliefs that you find repugnant. That'd be the Christian thing to do. Though I do love the way you worded that.

My... My..... The non religious are praying!!! Can I get an AMEN!!

I know Jesse is a camera hound, but he sounded good yesterday when he said that he had been with many people where they "pulled the plug" and then they died that day or the next, but this was not like that and it was bothering him. "We must temper law with mercy."

I don't care if he is grandstanding or making sure the Democrats don't look like complete scum here. I'm glad he's there.

Exactly, Rightwingsparkle.

I've always felt that, while the proper way to behave in a civil way, and with grace, is better served up with some humility. Anonymous giving, quiet dignity, that sort of thing.

But say you are suffering from cancer and have no money or insurance, and some loud-mouthed guy looking to score some extra media points, gives you the money for that treatment. Would you question the motives, or say "thank you" to the huckster and not give a "rat's red raw ass" (quoting someone here) about his motives? Just curious.

>I don't care if he is grandstanding or making sure the Democrats don't look like complete scum here. I'm glad he's there.

Me too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(The Liberals for Terri site is outstanding as well. )

Name calling! Excellent on Sue's part. A reasoned response thought out by a cognizant, though irrational, person. Florida's courts have been exhausted all the way up to their supreme court. Appeals have been made to the US Supreme Court 5 times, all denied. Federal court's had no right to intervene until Congress wrote a law. Then the first federal judge ruled according to governing statutes. The federal appeals court, again, ruled in accordance with established LAW. Then the Supreme Court denied even hearing the case again. Now, the Reverend Jackson's grandstanding appearance has seemed to influence the federal appeals court to review the case AGAIN. And don't 'muddy the water' by bringing up the husband's personal indiscretions with another woman. He's human, too. If you read the GAL reports, you'll see, he even offered to give up any monies associated with Terri. So, check your own motives before disparaging others.

megan, really eloquent and to the point. thanks.

Actually the Federal courts pretty much ignored the law that Congress wrote, which called specifically for a de novo review. That means that the entire case is to be reviewed as if it were a fresh case. The Federal court simply ignored this statute and said 'yup, the lower court was right.'

What makes Jesse run? This is the very first time I can ever think of that he's been on the right side. Perhaps he needs more cash to pay his latest blackmailing mistresses and has decided to sidle up to conservatives. But I guess one should not look a gift Jesse in the mouth.

Again, you missed the boat. All this talk of 'murder' and Habeus Corpus or corpus delecti (sic) is just 'mucking up the issue'. The issue is 'can the husband as primary legal guardian follow his wife's wishes' (though unwritten) and remove artificial life support from her?
The court's have ruled 'yes'. It is his decision to make. Three separate GAL's have investigated the case, three have supported the husband's intentions and only one, interjected a question into his motivation for doing so. These were independent people appointed to interview all concerned parties. The last appointed by Gov. Bush. This GAL supported the husband's rights, the doctor's conclusions, and submitted his report to the governor. The governor 'chose' to ignore the GAL's conclusions, respectively though. His attempt to circumvent the guardianship was ruled 'unconstitutional'.

ammobob: and what say you about Felos contributing money to Judge Greer?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/25/230207.shtml

Does this give you no pause? I don't give a rat's ass if it's "common practice, done all the time", it stinks. Bad.

ammobob:

Though I don't agree with the tactic on Sue's part, I must say that you've given many people quite a bit of "ammo" yourself. You besmirch the motives of nearly everyone you disagree with. I think Ace said something that I had always thought in my heart but never really was able to articulate quite this well:

Here's a tip about civility, Andrew: don't attack motives; disagree with the position itself. It is not enough for you to just keep asserting that everything you don't like is due to the "hatred" and "intolerance" of Christians. Whether people are motivated by strong religious convictions about the sanctity of life, or the belief that this case is, legally, a procedural travesty, it's their conclusions that matter, not the underlying motivations you often falsely attribute to them.

Rather to the point, is it not, Mr. Ammo? You could put the name of anyone you wish in that sentence, and it would ring true for all, including myself, Sue or perhaps you. Again, I don't like the name calling, and certainly wouldn't imply that your statements warrant such things, but perhaps if you took the tactic above, it might prevent the name-calling before it starts.

To All,

I took it upon myself to investigate the case, printing out reports, etc. I've read every line of the GAL reports. I've looked into the desicions made by the courts. I formed a rational opinion from the facts presented. I suppose the court's have done the same. After 'umpteen' reviews by much more learned people than I, I would hope the facts were reviewed thoroughly. This issue is a personal decision made by people, not courts. Once the court's have ruled though, when people can't agree, I think writing new laws to circumvent those rulings is disingenuous at best. I wish all commenting would just do the same.

ammobob wrote: "don't 'muddy the water' by bringing up the husband's personal indiscretions with another woman."

It is not Michael's indiscretions I take exception to; it is his desire to exercise the privileges and responsibilities of the role of Terri's husband. He is not her husband. He abandoned that role when he abandoned his vows.

The law grants a spouse certain rights and privileges based solely on the supposition that each is devoted entirely to the other. This supposition is based on the exclusivity of the vows of marriage.

It is clear that Michael has abandoned his vows. I'm not criticizing that fact. I am criticizing the fact that he is acting as if he hasn't, and I am criticizing the courts for treating his ridiculous pretense seriously.

If you want to remain responsible for your spouse, you should not betray the very reason you were granted that responsibility in the first place.

Pace your accusation that I'm being "irrational" and attempting to "muddy the waters" by noting the existence of his real wife, Jodi, I find remarks such as "He's human, too" to be far less relevant. No one is questioning his humanity. I am questioning his standing.

"The federal appeals court, again, ruled in accordance with established LAW"

The law and justice and not synonymous. I have little patience for legalese when an innocent is dying, especially under such highly questionable circumstances.

"he even offered to give up any monies associated with Terri. So, check your own motives before disparaging others."

I've never said Michael is actuated by mercenary motives. For all I know he may sincerely believe he's doing the right thing for his ex-wife. For all I know his account of what Terri said to him over 15 years ago is entirely accurate. Kindly don't attribute opinions to me that I do not hold.

As for my own motives, they're pretty much the following: I don't like the way this decision was taken, I don't like the fact that Michael took it, and I don't like the very real possibility that we're looking down the dark, twisted path of the Groningen Protocol.

Oh yeah, almost forgot. I also have a strong moral objection to fucking starving innocent fucking people to fucking death.

Megan: Thank you.

Bravo, Megan! A reasoned response in all aspects, except maybe for the profanity at the end. Very passionate. Thanks for caring, though.

The profanity wasn't really directed at you, ammobob. I just get frustrated over things like this.

does nayone else think this might be a cynical ploy by the court to say "they did all they could" considering her death could be any day now? maybe a way to try to calm the protesters? what is left to review at this point?

Megan, I feel just as passionately about leaving the decision where it belongs, with people, not courts. This type of decision is being made 100's of times each year (probably alot more). I surmise this case is only unique in that it is occuring in front of America, instead of at hospitals or in the home. If Terri's wish was in writing, this all would be 'moot', but since it isn't, here we are.

Ammobob:

That's a wish, not a reality. When a gathering storm of discontent bursts forth onto the social scene, one must ask why, and try and answer those questions.

People choose sides and take heat, but it's political. But people are taking sides because they have sincere, concrete motives for doing so. There are very serious flaws with this case, and it has caused a shitstorm. But to castigate one side or the other as morons makes you (or anyone lamenting this) a wisher for logic amongst the citizenry when people are really a complex mix of emotion and reason.

Such a society such as you and others might desire does not exist on this planet, and never will. I'd rather think that it would be a sterile society, but that's just the way I like my world...filled with humanity, not filled with Philosopher Kings.

Ammomob,

Funny how someone so thoroughly familar with this case can only cite the GAL report and "umpteen" reviews.

ammobob, agreed. I don't think it would be unreasonable for Congress to enact a law requiring anyone applying for a state or federal ID to sign a living will at the same time - a real, comprehensive living will, not one of those half-assed efforts overturned every day at present. How much would we all save in legal fees, court costs, manpower, protection orders, and media coverage? Not to mention all the grief, anguish, and confusion things like this inevitably engender.

Even if the results weren't perfect, surely they would improve on what we have now.

The problem here is what Megan said. I wake up every morning, and realize an innocent woman is being tortured to death in Florida, and there's nothing I can do about it.

Terri Shiavo's parents very well may be deluded in their beliefs, and Michael Shiavo may well have the best motives in the world, but this is torture, inflicted on someone who hasn't done anything wrong. If the courts really cared - hadn't declared her essentially superfluous - they would have ruled that a healthy, brain damaged woman who did not leave specific, written instructions that this be done to her, could not be killed this way.

This latest court hearing is likely a sham. Terri Shiavo deserved better.

I feel just as passionately about leaving the decision where it belongs, with people, not courts

This makes no sense. Of course it's a legal issue -- someone is being starved to death, and the man who made the call is using the police power of the state to PREVENT anyone else from voluntarily offering her basic care.

It's a court-issue because it involves a conflict of rights -- Michael's right to starve his "wife" to death versus the right of her parents to give her a glass of water.

Her parents are being forcibly prevented from giving their daughter basic nutrition. That act of force makes this a legal issue.

You aren't genuinely opposed to the use of a court's power. You are simply opposed to a court using that power in a way you dislike -- forcing everyone else to allow two parents to feed their daughter.

And I agree with Megan -- Michael should be allowed his "indiscretions," as you put it. I should point out, though, that you are blatantly attempting to hide the fact that he is not acting as her husband any more, and hasn't been for many years. He has started a new family.

Now, before you get high and mighty, I am not saying that he should be criticized for starting a new family.

What I am saying is that he can't have it both ways -- on the one leaving his invalid wife for another woman and raising children with her, while on the other hand maintaining the transparent fiction that he is Terri's next of kin.

If he wants to leave, then he can leave. He should not be allowed to (a) leave the marriage while also (b) retaining the power to decide if his de facto ex-wife lives or dies.

The GAL reports and 'umpteen' juducial reviews is all unrelated people get. The record is what it is, the record. I may or may not agree with the husband's decision, but I respect it, not being a part of the 15 year process. I have never called anyone a name or used disparaging vernacular when addressing another's opinion. I respect their position, whether I feel it is 'unreasoned' or not. I try to lead to enlightenment, instead of a kneejerk reaction. But, you can't lead an obstinate horse to water. When all is said an done, Terri's fate is not in our hands, and shouldn't be.

George at Snapshot wrote: "It's a court-issue because it involves a conflict of rights... Her parents are being forcibly prevented from giving their daughter basic nutrition. That act of force makes this a legal issue."

I think what ammobob might have meant by "leaving the decision with people rather than the courts" (paraphrased) is that this shouldn't have become a legal matter in the first place. If Terri's wishes had been in writing, it might not have. Maybe we can be spared a replay of this situation in the future if Congress enacts something like the legislation I suggested.

I don't usually try to clarify other people's remarks, but in one of my posts above, I mentioned that I agreed with ammobob, and I agreed because that's what I took his meaning to be. I hope I wasn't mistaken.

ammobob wrote: "Terri's fate is not in our hands, and shouldn't be."

I think we can all agree on that point. The polls about the justification for her murder are pretty disgusting, and not just because of the obviously biased questions.

That's fair, Megan, but it doesn't really change things. It's still a legal issue either way.

People should be allowed to make decisions without a court's pre-approval. But courts always get the last word, because if they aren't involved in a pre-approval process, they can judge you for your actions after the fact. Either way, any legal issue becomes a court matter sooner or later.

And killing someone (or allowing a dependent person in your care to die, which is the same thing) is always a legal issue.

True.

Kind of OT: MSM is reporting that the Pope is now using a feeding tube, but they are jumping thru hoops to make sure that we know it's not the same kind of tube that Terri has. Here's one example, unfortunately it's FOX doing that spin.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151931,00.html

Ace:

I'm getting e-mails bounced back from your yahooee account.

Old Coot:

While I agree that it's Fox's name on that, the writer is for WebMD, so maybe our boys over there arent' completely besmirching their name. But they do have their banner on the story.

If this story is exclusvie to FOX, that'd give your charge more teeth, but it doesn't appear to be quite that bad. But it's bad.

KCTrio,

It could be that it's getting a little full, although I still have room in it, supposedly. I'll see about pruning it and see if that helps.

As seen today with most other social issues and 'not-so-binding' contracts, everything is challengeable in a court of law. The husband hasn't relinquished guardianship because it's still his legal right. His motives for not divorcing Terri may be rooted in the 'bad' blood between himself and the parents. All the questions of his ulterior motives and alleged abuse of Terri have been brought forth by the parents to wrest that guardianship from him. His In-Laws encouraged him to 'get on with his life', when he did, they used that to challenge his legal right. Make no mistake, the parents are challenging HIS legal right.

ammobob,

Maybe it's just me or maybe I'm wrong, but you're arguing something that no one is disputing. Of course MS has a legal right to do what he thinks is "best." And yes, the Schindlers are challenging that legal right. But does the simple possession of the legal right to do something translate into the moral authority or justification to do so?

I just think you're talking at cross purposes.

A legal right is not a moral license.

People here seem to be arguiing that MS is morally wrong in his actions. You're insisting he's legally right.

That's not a counter argument, it's being pedantic. I'm not trying to flame (for once). I'm just saying your "argument' about legal rights carries little weight in the moral realm in which most people are viewing this case.

Ammo, you are an ignorant ass.

If you knew anything about the legal system, you would know that judges who hear a case prepare a document at the conclusion known as the "finding of facts". The judge is free to throw out whatever evidence he desires, in order to shape his "facts".

Greer chose to disregard numerous pieces of evidence, including testimony from roughly half a dozen different people who witnessed Michael Schiavo lying when he claimed he knew what Terri's wishes were.

Greer chose to shape his "facts" to fit his verdict.

When every appeals court reviewed the case, it had to use Greer's "findings of fact".

It could not use evidence or testimony Greer chose not to include.

Get it? In other words, "what I say is real, and nothing else".

How do I know this? Because it is the law, and I have witnessed it first hand in a case I was personally involved in.

The only way an appeals court could have overturned Greer's decision would be if it found he had excessively abused his discretion, which is a standard set so high that it is virtually never met.

You want to preach about how much fucking research you did?

Then do the fucking research.

Here's what bothers me about this case: In order to end Terri's life, Florida law required Michael Schiavo to present "clear and convincing evidence" that Terri had no hope of recovery and would wish to have her life terminated if in her present state.

Now we can debate whether that standard was met or not, but to me the issue is the standard of proof itself. Why in God's name is a higher standard of proof required to convict and execute a murderer (proof beyond a reasonable doubt) than to end the life of an innocent person?

I'm not a lawyer, but just as a matter of logic and moral consistency it seems as though our priorities are pretty fucked up.

Am I crazy?

Geez, it seems taking a clear-minded view of what is in print and not assuming 'facts' (or could we substitute 'hearsay' or 'delusions of grandeur') were disregarded by the courts has touched a few hearts. Does this occur in ALL cases? Can we trust our judicial appointees at all? Does this 'finding of fact' undermine our whole legal system? It seems it does according to the above post. A judge can disregard 'facts'???? Isn't that what appeals courts are for? Isn't that what the parents argued everytime on appeal? I guess the 'facts' that were disregarded willi-nilli were'nt relevant. Hmmm....some really tough questions, don't you think?

Oh, and here's the link to Greer's original ruling that cites the "clear and convincing" standard.

Once again, ammo, you show off your total lack of legal scholarship.

"Isn't that what appeals courts are for?"

Um, no. Appeals courts do NOT modify or overturn the "findings of fact".

Gee, I think I just told you that, didn't I?

Thanks 'Warden" for the above link. Clarifies all that 'findings of fact' stuff I've been hearing about. It's a shame the appeals courts can't rule on the legalities of this document. They all probably sat watching TV during the judicial proceedings, not bothering with the numerous petitions filed by the parents sitting in front of them. Gosh, Dogstar sounds like my ex-wife.......creepy.

Dogstar

Is there any way the appeals courts might have helped Terri? If not, why go through the process?
Was it just to check for technical errors?

That's why we call them J-U-D-G-E-S. Maybe, they are helping Terri.

Warden, "clear and convincing proof" is a higher standard of proof according to the law than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." If it were the other way around, you're right, it would be crazy.

Ammobob gets upbraided by the resident skank:

Fuck you, you death-loving cocksucker. I hope you have a wife who pops out kids for your worst enemy while you lie in a hospice bed and thirst to fucking death.

Posted by Sue Dohnim

Oddly, or predictably the stupid twat gets the usual kneejerk Right to Lifer support here for her comments - perhaps because her venom is so typical of the law-breaking, death threats, putting out hit contracts, now bomb threats so typical of the "sanctity of life" crowd.

Sue is quick to say she is Jewish, therefore CANNOT be a religious fanatic - since we all know Jews are as pure as the driven snow and never, ever discriminate against others - say Christian and Muslim Palestinians - in their religious ferver.

Warden,

The Florida state law (and many other states as well, I believe) says that the right to refuse medical treatment can be established either through written or oral expression. The Florida Supreme court says specifically that oral evidence by itself may constitute clear and convincing evidence.

Appeals courts overturn lower court decisions when mistakes regarding the application of law are made.

However, lower court judges are allowed wide amounts of discretion in the weighing of evidence. If 20 witnesses claim a used car salesman promised them a lifetime warrenty on a clunker, and the judge hearing the case (who just so happens to be the recipient of campaign contributions from the used car salesman's attorney) claims that all 20 witnesses were "deemed unreliable", he is exercising his discretion.

The only difference is, this is the ONLY situation where a civil judge, using the lower standard of proof, orders the state-mandated starvation of a person.

See, normally, in order to kill somebody, the state has to be right "beyond a reasonable doubt".

But when it comes to killing Terri, they just have to beat a coin flip (>50%).

Foxnews reporting:

denied, again

Some comments have alluded to Nancy Reagan's saintlike vigil over "Ronnie". And how, unlike Scott Peterson II *spit* this woman in her 80's was not tempted to find a new boyfriend.

Now, I think Nancy Reagan and Reagan's kids were very devoted, and it helps they had unlimited resources most Alzheimers families don't get for care...but Reagan died after only a year or so of end stage Alzheimers. And he died from aspiration pneumonia according to his death certificate ...meaning as his brain shutdown he finally got to a point where he didn't know to swallow or breathe. Think, if Nancy had only put Ronnie on artificial life support - a feeding machine - he likely would still be with us - "enjoying" many years more of "glorious, sacred life". Of course, that was likely not R Reagan's wishes.....he left that decision to his spouse....and no feeding tube was ever implanted in Reagan.

Now, on a man in his mid 20s remaining faithful and having a family vs. a woman in her 80's???? Well, leaving Nancy and her kids behind.....

The best example is the Vietnam MIA wives. Around a thousand existed. The vast majority moved on to new relationships in a few years despite some reports of POWs in secret hollow mountains. Some were called sluts and whores for moving on. Some were expelled from churches of a right wing persuasion. In the beginning, some POW/MIA activists convinced of a plethora of living uncounted POWs demanded they be faithful as an example to the nation and loyalty to "her man". A few attempts were made to strip them of their guardianship of their missing spouse's estate and children.

None. None, were involuntarily stripped of their spousal rights. Because most of the nation understood, had no wish to make their lives worse, and the early members of the Religious Right movement that sought to punish them had society's clear message sent to their pulpits - Back Off!!

If you believe Michael Schiavo was a sleaze and an adulterer, and should have been forced to turn over guardianship to her parents - no doubt you believe the MIA wives were disloyal sluts who should have been forced to turn over estate matters and kids to the man's parents...

Morpheus,

Based on what I've read, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the highest standard of proof.

Again, I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps someone with a law degree can clear this up.

"And he died from aspiration pneumonia according to his death certificate ...meaning as his brain shutdown he finally got to a point where he didn't know to swallow or breathe."

Notice the word "breathe". This will become very important.

"Think, if Nancy had only put Ronnie on artificial life support - a feeding machine - he likely would still be with us - 'enjoying' many years more of 'glorious, sacred life'."

So, Cedarford, does a feeding tube supply oxygen to the lungs? Or would it also be necessary to supply Mr. Reagan with BREATHING ASSISTANCE?

See, there's a difference between someone who cannot breathe, and someone can.

That's kinda why all of us Terri supporters are so worked up.

I know, it's complicated. Maybe you should leave the heavy lifting to the grown-ups.

"Clear and convincing proof" is NOT a higher standard of proof than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

It is intermediate -- higher than "a preponderance of the evidence" but lower than "reasonable doubt."

In other words, a "preponderance of the evidence" means that a party has to show that it is more likely than not that a particular fact exists.

"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" means that if you have a doubt that a fact exists, and that doubt is supported by a good reason (as opposed to a hunch, a guess, bias, or capriciousness), you have to find the other way.

"Clear and convincing" means something in between. Unfortunately, it means different things to different people, and is often criticized in legal circles as being vague. I guess it means that whoever has the burden must prove a fact to a 75% certainty, if such things can be quantified.

CF,

YOu've been saying this over and over this whole time "If you believe Michael Schiavo was a sleaze and an adulterer, and should have been forced to turn over guardianship to her parents - no doubt you believe the MIA wives were disloyal sluts who should have been forced to turn over estate matters and kids to the man's parents..." and it just doesn't fucking follow. Your logic does not compute.

It's not the same species of fruit.

Hell, it's not even the same class of organic matter.

TS isn't "missing," she's in a braindead state (at worst, but let's assume the worst).

MS could divorce her easily if he's going to be with another woman. The POW wives didn't know where their husbands were, dead or alive, and they got scorned b/c they DIVORCED their missing husbands. If they didn't divorce, and they shacked up anyway, then they were labelled sluts. The (likely unjustified) anger directed at them was due to the perception of disloyalty to a military husband who was giving everything he had for his country.

Bottom line in both cases though is: you don't fuck others while you're married. MS has, is, and will prolly continue to do so. All he has to do is get a divorce if he wants to dally around with another woman.

Please stop using this worn out, illogical analogy.

Please.

George at Snapshot,

That was my understanding.

So does anyone else have a problem with sentencing Terri Schiavo to death on a lower standard of proof necessary to a criminal?

I do, Warden.

In fact, somewhere on here (in my comments to one of Ace's first Schiavo posts) that was one of my primary objections to the whole situation.

It's a valid point, in my opinion.

The standard wasn't met. From here, which Ace linked below:

___
"Judge Greer considered statements from Terri's mother and another unidentified witness that Ms. Schiavo did not wish to die. He also considered statements from Michael Schiavo, his brother, and sister-in-law Joan. Michael and Joan discussed things Terri Schiavo had said after watching television dramas about people on life support (which Terri is not). Curiously, Terri's mother and the other witness offered testimony about what Terri said after watching similar programs -- she thought the person on life support should remain alive. Do these conflicting post-TV accounts really settle the question of Terri's intent?

Terri apparently told her brother-in-law that she did not wish to "be kept alive on a machine." A feeding tube is not a machine, except perhaps in the most basic sense of an inclined plane. However, judicial activism is never deterred by ambiguity. Judge Greer relied on testimony from an expert witness who had conducted surveys about Americans' general attitudes toward palliative care, and concluded that Ms. Schiavo's words

"reflect underlying values of independence, quality of life, not to be a burden and so forth. "Hooked to a machine" means they do not want life artificially extended when there is not hope of improvement."

This is absurd. Looking beyond the conflicts of interest inherent in Michael Schiavo's testimony, the various statements attributed to Terri Schiavo are conflicting and contradictory. The use of an expert witness to interpret, and to testify about what most Americans usually mean acknowledges that Ms. Schiavo's own words on the subject, if they were ever spoken, were neither clear nor convincing enough to stand on their own.
___

Excellent article and excellent point.

You seem to have difficulty reading, Dogstar. R Reagan died of aspiration pneumonia because his damaged brain didn't know food was in the mouth. He breathed in, sucked the contents of his mouth into his lungs, and developed his fatal illness. He had never lost the capacity to breathe on his own.....only your difficulty in reading and understanding made you think otherwise....but then again..if you could read and understand on a higher level, I doubt you would be a member of the Religious Right.

Just think. If R Reagan had only been on a feeding machine, who knows how many more years of glorious, sacred, vegetative life awaited him!!!

Fortunately, IMO, that was not what R Reagan or his guardian N Reagan wanted.

Which one of us wrote "...meaning as his brain shutdown he finally got to a point where he didn't know to swallow or breathe"?

Duh...

Hobby - Your position that the MIA who "might come back" against all odds is fundamentally different than T Schiavo who might come back against all odds because SHE IS THERE is illogical.

If she was really there, then there would be no problem with her husband taking long walks on the beach with her, having great conversations, great sex, and having children with her. We of course would arrest him for that last two as criminal offenses of non-consensual sex. And no one denies he had as much companionship after her brain was destroyed as a MIA wife did after their husband's jet was destroyed and went down in some unknown patch of mountainous jungle.

You haven't read much on what happened to the MIA wives, have you? Like you, there were some sanctimonious military wife bitches and servicemen that attempted to scorn MIA wives if they divorced and lost all benefits, or called them sluts if they established a relationship after years of waiting knowing there was a 99.9% certainty their spouse was never coming back. What the military command did, or even worse, the Colonel's wife did, in the case of poisonous tongue bitch military wives is pay a little visit and say if they heard another word a certain bitch or moralizing serviceman would be considered "unwelcome in current assignment" and reassigned. To Saudi Arabia. Until they realized they had just kiled their career going after the MIA wives, and resigned.

CF,

for the love of all that's holy, man, stop being such a jerk.

"Like you, there were some sanctimonious military wife bitches and servicemen that attempted to scorn MIA wives if they divorced and lost all benefits" is not an argument, it;s a flame.

If you want to flame, we can just go back to the "cocksucker" posts and leave it at that.

If not, my point still stands: you don't fuck other people while still married (esp long term, procreative relationships) and pretend you're staying married for love.

There's not a chance in hell TS is ever "coming back" so your analogy doesn't hold water. I'm willing to accept that she's braindead for all practical purposes, as MS has been arguing.

The point is, then, why not divorce her? He knows she's gone.

The insurance money? That's pretty mercenary, bub.

The reason you're saying the MIA wives stayed married was for the benefits. That's also mercenary.

I personally don't give a rat's ass about whether "society" thoguht MIA wives who made new lives were sluts. I never argued that MIAs might come back. I said you don't fuck others while you're married. Get a divorce if you want to dally around.

The point is, there's no question here, and by your own admission, TS is hopeless. She ain't coming back, but there she is. MS staying married to her while fucking and reproducing with a different woman is wrong, no matter how you slice it. He's either a bigamist, a mercenary, cocksucker or a combo of all 3.

The underlying similarities in your analogy just aren't there.

That's all I'm trying to say.

I'm honestly confused about why anyone bothers responding to Cedarford at all.

Megan,

b/c ace said to play nice, and he's making illogical statements.

plus I am procrastinating

megan,

I've found it hard to ignore it's hate mongering. But a comment by See Dubya yesterday indicated to me that I've turned into a bit of an accomplice so I've given it up. Perhaps thats the best course of action for all of us.

Dude, don't blame me! I was just stirring the pot. I figured Cedar would put his fist through his monitor at the implication.

Brewski, you? An accomplice? A facilitator? An antagonist?

NEVER!

(good call, btw, but I'm really just trying to limit the amount of blatant illogic here. Since ace-o wants us to play nice, and since CF isn't banninated, might as well try to peel that onion of illogic.)

CF,

I've really tried to think about your analogy as comprehensively as possible, and all I can come up with is that you think MS is entitled to the insurance money (benefits) before he moves on, and thus shouldn't be considered a male slut.

Yet here's the deal: the military wives actually sacrificed something for the benefits of their husbands (namely, a normal life outside of a military base). Here, what has MS sacrificed?

Nothing.

Why should he be entitled to TS's life insurance money? It's not like he's going into debt keeping her alive, and it's not like he has this undying, sacrosanct love for her. He's fathering another woman's kids!

Where's the equivalence there?

no blame See Dubya :) I've been thinking I've been going a little overboard for a while and that comment just nudged me into some long overdue introspection. So the new BrewFan refuses to acknowledge the existence of...you know who.

Hobby - So now you believe the MIA wives were not only immoral, they were mercenaries!

How sweet!

I said you don't fuck others while you're married.

MS staying married to her while fucking and reproducing with a different woman is wrong, no matter how you slice it. He's either a bigamist, a mercenary, cocksucker or a combo of all 3.

And guess what? The Courts and most of society reject your moral outrage, as they did with the MIA wives. In M Schiavo's case, as utterly irrelevant to his ability - which the Courts and Guardian Ad Litems said - was superb, to care for T Schiavo as her Guardian.

And in Court proceedings, remember that the Schindlers parents both said things that profoundly disturbed the Court and the Guardian Ad Litems regarding their own fitness as potential guardians. The Schindler parents said they wanted custody of T Schiavo for their own pleasure, that if definitive evidence emerged of T Schiavo NOT wanting to live as a PVS patient, they STILL wanted the Court to keep her alive at all costs, despite her wishes. That if she had to go on a respirator, they would keep her on it as long as she lived - so she could stay alive at all costs so they could pray and be with her. Same for major heart or cancer surgery if it would keep her alive. And worse, that they would happily order the amputation of all her limbs if clots or bedsores developed requiring amputations - only her being with them mattered. The Court and the GALs had great reservations about ever putting the Schindler parents in charge. If not M Schiavo, the papers show the inclination was for a GAL in his stead, not the Schindlers.

And remember that it was the Schindler parents that raised the demand that M Schiavo divorce and give up his rights because he was an immoral sinner unfit to be in the same room as "God's daughter Terri".

Now, if you make the assumption that M Schiavo has been telling the truth, and the Schindlers have been hallucinating, lying or simply psychotic about T Schiavos being fully cognitive, talking regularly -----and considering that the Schindlers have been publically sliming M Schiavo for almost a dozen years....that they released the misleading snippet of video despite court order...destroying his wife's privacy..

How best to handle their demand to admit he is a sinning adulturer unfit to defile Terris bedside? That he should divorce and turn over control to a lying father who the courts and guardians say has "disturbing ideas" on her future care??

Comply with the Schindler parents demand to divorce because he offends their God?

Or tell the whole Schindler clan and Randall Terry to stick it up there ass?

I know what I'd do if I had been telling the truth and the other side was a pack of unremitting liars and slimers.....and I hope you would have the cajones to do similarly, Hobby.......unless you think purely emotionally and buy that M Schiavo is really Scott Peterson II and Terri is Laci II.