Author Topic: Preacherman, T. Schiavo and The SOUL...  (Read 21908 times)

Wildalaska

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
Preacherman, T. Schiavo and The SOUL...
« Reply #125 on: April 01, 2005, 07:09:15 PM »
Dominus vobiscum et con spiritu tuo...

Shes passed to a better world...why are we beating a dead horse....

And for those who critisize the Judges decision, read this from the Fla District appeals Court...

"For those of us who are not trained physicians and who do not deal on a
daily basis with patients in vegetative states, or with the difficult decision to remove lifesustaining
treatment, the images of Mrs. Schiavo's face are haunting. But the images
-8-
do not reveal the full extent of the devastation to her brain and her inability to engage in
cognition. Dr. Wolfson, the guardian who was appointed at the request of the Governor,
visited Mrs. Schiavo many times in 2003. He was unable to independently observe any
"consistent, repetitive, intentional, reproducible interactive and aware activities." His
report does not challenge the now well-established medical diagnosis that Mrs.
Schiavo's movements are merely reflexive. As he explained: "This is the confusing
thing for the lay person about persistent vegetative states."
Our previous statements on the matter apply with undiminished relevancy
in this appeal:
The judges on this panel are called upon to make a
collective, objective decision concerning a question of law.
Each of us, however, has our own family, our own loved
ones, our own children. From our review of the videotapes
of Mrs. Schiavo, despite the irrefutable evidence that her
cerebral cortex has sustained the most severe of irreparable
injuries, we understand why a parent who had raised and
nurtured a child from conception would hold out hope that
some level of cognitive function remained. If Mrs. Schiavo
were our own daughter, we could not but hold to such a
faith.

But in the end, this case is not about the aspirations that
loving parents have for their children. It is about Theresa
Schiavo's right to make her own decision, independent of her
parents and independent of her husband. In circumstances
such as these, when families cannot agree, the law has
opened the doors of the circuit courts to permit trial judges to
serve as surrogates or proxies to make decisions about lifeprolonging
procedures. See In re Guardianship of Browning,
568 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990) (affirming In re Guardianship of
Browning, 543 So. 2d 258, 273-74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)); see
also § 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000). It is the trial judge's
duty not to make the decision that the judge would make for
himself or herself or for a loved one. Instead, the trial judge
must make a decision that the clear and convincing evidence
shows the ward would have made for herself. § 765.401(3).
It is a thankless task, and one to be undertaken with care,
objectivity, and a cautious legal standard designed to
promote the value of life.
Schiavo IV, 851 So. 2d at 186-87.

We are well aware that many people around the world disagree with the
trial court's decision. However, when he became a judge, the trial court judge took an
oath, required by the Florida Constitution, to obey the rule of law and the constitution of
this state. The trial judge followed and obeyed the law as set out by the precedent of
the Supreme Court of Florida and by the general laws adopted by the Legislature. The
trial judge made this most difficult decision after fully considering the evidence and
applying a heightened standard of proof that is designed to protect society's interest in
sustaining life.

It is important for all to understand that the Florida Constitution has long
been interpreted to authorize the process used by the trial court in this case. The
legislature has passed general laws implementing these constitutional rights.3 Neither
the trial court nor this court can change this established law at this stage of these
proceedings. No one who considers the dismal history of countries in which courts and
judges have abandoned the rule of law would ask us to abandon the rule of law even inthis case."

You werent there I wasnt there, Judge Greer was. hes the one that must live with the decsion. Ya dont like the result, work to change thge law. In the interim, all of the yabbering bullshit and slandering tossed around does a diservice to the life of this woman.

WildsigningoffAlaska
I'm just a condescending, supercilious,  pompous ass .But then again, my opinion is as irrelevant as yours, and keep in mind kids, it's only the internet! If I bug ya that much, ignore me. Anyway, need something? Call me at 800/992-4570.
?If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers?

http://www.hyperarts.com/pynchon/gravity/index.html

http://www.therealwildalaska.com/blog/

Guest

  • Guest
Preacherman, T. Schiavo and The SOUL...
« Reply #126 on: April 01, 2005, 08:25:19 PM »
In other news we are now going to start down a whole different slippery slope in which we lose even more of our precious checks and balances. Just watch, pretty soon the legislative branch is going to be excercizing even more control over the judicial branch. And if you think the judicial branch has erroded our RKBA just look at what the legislative branch has done, THAT is the source of ALL of our gun controll.

MaterDei

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
Preacherman, T. Schiavo and The SOUL...
« Reply #127 on: April 02, 2005, 01:42:55 AM »
"Just watch, pretty soon the legislative branch is going to be excercizing even more control over the judicial branch."

Which is exactly the intent of the Constitution.  Controlling itself is the only thing I like the idea of government controlling.

What is the ultimate check on the federal judiciary?  Impeachment.  When is the last time that you recall a federal judge being impeached?  Yea, me neither.  What are some other checks on the judiciary?  Eliminating some of the circus courts is one.  The constitution only mandates a surpreme court, all the others are creatures of congress.  Also, with the executive branch's help you can 'pack' the courts.  So, when was the last time you remember a court being packed or eliminated?  Yea, me neither.

What is the ultimate check on a member of congress or the president?  Our vote.  When is the last time that you recall a congressman or president not being reelected?  Happens all the time.

So why is the concept of holding the judiciary accountable for their actions so alien to most Americans?

macavada

  • New Member
  • Posts: 32
Preacherman, T. Schiavo and The SOUL...
« Reply #128 on: April 02, 2005, 04:22:35 AM »
It is not the judges that are out of control, it is the politicians.

We can vote them out, but we're not doing it.  One side has too much power.  That's where checks and balances come into play.

Getting bent out of shape over a particular case that doesn't go your ideological way isn't an objective assessment of the judiciary or our government, IMO.  It just reflects the dissastisfaction that you have for a particular aspect of our government because they haven't yet become part of the total ideological plan.

You've got your legislature and you've got your executive branch.  I guess the ideologues won't be happy until they've corrupted the courts so that all power resides with one ideological philosophy.

This constitution that you revere so much - what about the aspects in it that require checks and balances, separation of powers, the idea of federalism and states rights.  I guess it is perfectly o.k. to cast all those constitutional principles aside in favor of party and ideology.

This whole outrage at the judiciary is nothing more than propaganda perpetuated by the talking heads that have gotten control of the "conservatives" with non-conservative power grabbing goals.

My sensibilities are offended at what those in control are doing with their power while they have it.  They stop at nothing.  They have no sense of decency, and all is good in the pursuance of the ideology at all costs.  They are overreaching, but it isn't the judges.  There's going to be a backlash, and then we'll have to worry about our gun rights.

Sean Smith

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 257
Preacherman, T. Schiavo and The SOUL...
« Reply #129 on: April 02, 2005, 04:41:47 AM »
Main Entry: dis·in·gen·u·ous
Pronunciation: "di-s&n-'jen-y&-w&s
Function: adjective
: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : CALCULATING
- dis·in·gen·u·ous·ly adverb
- dis·in·gen·u·ous·ness noun

I don't think the word means what you thought it meant.  Wink

Guest

  • Guest
Preacherman, T. Schiavo and The SOUL...
« Reply #130 on: April 02, 2005, 09:42:59 PM »
Quote
What is the ultimate check on the federal judiciary?  Impeachment.  When is the last time that you recall a federal judge being impeached?  Yea, me neither.
Actually the ultimate check on judiciary ist he fact that the legislative branch can outright change the entire constitution. There is no court review of a constitutional amendment since by default it is constiution because it's part of the constitution. The Legislative branch can alter the very fabric of law that makes the entire country function, that is the ULTIMATE check on everything, and the legislative branch has the keys. They could quite literally nulify every single right that listed in the constitution and there is nothing that anyone could do about it (short of shooting people). How much more do they need than that?

MaterDei

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
Preacherman, T. Schiavo and The SOUL...
« Reply #131 on: April 03, 2005, 05:53:14 PM »
"They could quite literally nulify every single right that listed in the constitution and there is nothing that anyone could do about it (short of shooting people)."

Wrong again.

Quite literally, to amend the constitution not only do two thirds of both the House and the Senate need to approve but you also need THREE QUARTERS (38) OF THE STATES TO RATIFY THE AMENDMENT.

DustinD

  • I have a title
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 919
  • I have a personal text message
Preacherman, T. Schiavo and The SOUL...
« Reply #132 on: April 04, 2005, 10:49:36 PM »
Is there a reason why the pro life camp wants parents to have more say than husbands to decide people's fate? Or is it just what they want in this case?

Why do people find it strange that the husband does not want an autopsy? Almost no one gets on done unless there is something to learn from it. What could possibly be the point of having an autopsy other than the media's curiosity? I think the husband is making the right choice by not putting her on stage just for the sake of ratings.
"I don't always shoot defenceless women in the face, but when I do, I prefer H-S Precision.

Stay bloodthirsty, my friends."

                       - Lon Horiuchi

Gus Dddysgrl

  • New Member
  • Posts: 16
Preacherman, T. Schiavo and The SOUL...
« Reply #133 on: April 05, 2005, 11:35:04 AM »
Personally I think she should have been turned back to her parents a long time ago.  He does not want her and probably would have gotten a divorce if she was able to consent to it, but she can't so he is her legal guardian.  However he's having an affair and should not have to live with a veggie(even though some docs have said she has SOME brain activity) so give her guardianship back to the parents who want the responsibility.  Also it was her starving herself to be thin that cause the chemicals in her brain to go nuts and put her in this state.  So it is only fair she should starve to death.  Of course this is my opinion on how she should die.  The money being used to keep her alive could have been put to much better use.  

About the soul.....I think only God knows.  I'm one that says that the soul is there at conception and may end when brain activity ends along with when the body stops functioning on it's own.  Course I'm not sure since there have been people who have been "dead" then revived by some machine, but it wasn't me so I don't know.

Gus
Leigh Ober

Sean Smith

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 257
Preacherman, T. Schiavo and The SOUL...
« Reply #134 on: April 05, 2005, 11:40:00 AM »
Quote from: DustinD
Why do people find it strange that the husband does not want an autopsy? Almost no one gets on done unless there is something to learn from it. What could possibly be the point of having an autopsy other than the media's curiosity? I think the husband is making the right choice by not putting her on stage just for the sake of ratings.
Actually, he already asked to have an autopsy done.  Of course the same people that claimed he was opposed to the autopsy, now claim that it would happen anyway and that is support of it is just a stunt, too.  rolleyes

Guest

  • Guest
Preacherman, T. Schiavo and The SOUL...
« Reply #135 on: April 05, 2005, 11:41:19 PM »
Quote from: MaterDei
Quite literally, to amend the constitution not only do two thirds of both the House and the Senate need to approve but you also need THREE QUARTERS (38) OF THE STATES TO RATIFY THE AMENDMENT.
Yes, and this is a process that the only the legislative branch can initiate, so how is that NOT a massive check on the judicial branch?