DrTorch Wrote:Anyway, back to an earlier discussion, I heard today that the appeals rulings were simply based on the same arguments, and that if the Shindler family (Terri's parents) really wanted a better chance then they would have asked for an evidentiary hearing. Which is the sort of thing that I have been expecting in all of this (I just didn't know how to articulate it, nor did I fully understand that the two types of hearings were so distinguished)

So, either the Shindlers have lousy lawyers, or as fsquid stated the evidence isn't all that compelling.

I'm interested in the truth in this case, and I'm now less certain as to what that is.

That displeases me, b/c I'm very much an empiricist, and if you're giving me bad data, then I'll make bad decisions. That hurts me and everybody else.

I could be wrong, but I don't think her parents would normally be legally entitled to another evidentiary hearing, there have been several already. Congress tried to force the federal court to have a new evidentiary hearing with the bill they passed, but the Judge stated that since the parents' claim focused on due process violations in the state courts (and provided no new claims), that he was required to base his decision on the record aand actions committed by state courts.

wpblazer Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:Anyway, back to an earlier discussion, I heard today that the appeals rulings were simply based on the same arguments, and that if the Shindler family (Terri's parents) really wanted a better chance then they would have asked for an evidentiary hearing.  Which is the sort of thing that I have been expecting in all of this (I just didn't know how to articulate it, nor did I fully understand that the two types of hearings were so distinguished)

So, either the Shindlers have lousy lawyers, or as fsquid stated the evidence isn't all that compelling.

I'm interested in the truth in this case, and I'm now less certain as to what that is.

That displeases me, b/c I'm very much an empiricist, and if you're giving me bad data, then I'll make bad decisions.  That hurts me and everybody else.

I could be wrong, but I don't think her parents would normally be legally entitled to another evidentiary hearing, there have been several already. Congress tried to force the federal court to have a new evidentiary hearing with the bill they passed, but the Judge stated that since the parents' claim focused on due process violations in the state courts (and provided no new claims), that he was required to base his decision on the record aand actions committed by state courts.

So they're not allowed to have an evidentiary hearing? :bang:

I understand trying to maintain the system, but this is insane!

If you cannot re-evaluate the evidence, the real data, how are you ever going to deliver good, sound judicial decisions?! :bang: :mad:

Quote: So they're not allowed to have an evidentiary hearing? banghead.gif

8-12 years of arguing this and they need another evidentiary hearing?? I for one do not think that our courts are so inept that they would continue to rule the wrong way for 8-12 years. I guess I just have too much faith in my country.

RebelKev Wrote:Her parents stated they would grant a divorce. They want her kept alive. YOU ****ing people are siding with a piece of **** that moved in with another woman and had children by her. Typical.

Actually, I'm siding with the sacred bond between husband and wife and a ability to make a personal decision without the threat of the federal government coming in.

While her state is being debated.......why in the hell would they remove the tube? When the final result is death, it is a travesty to allow this to occur. Some doctors say that there is no hope, some say there is. Again, this is akin to carrying out a death sentence while the criminal is in appeal.

fsquid Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Her parents stated they would grant a divorce. They want her kept alive. YOU ****ing people are siding with a piece of **** that moved in with another woman and had children by her. Typical.

Actually, I'm siding with the sacred bond between husband and wife and a ability to make a personal decision without the threat of the federal government coming in.

Yeah, that bond sure was sacred to him, wudn't it?

Let me preface this with an apology, as I don't have the slightest idea how to break RebelKev's post up into separate quotes. Therefore, I'm just going to address his points as best I can.

You told Fsquid to stop thrwoing in how he would feel, because he was not Terri. You are doing the exact same thing, but its okay for you?

I am not gambling with anything, my opinion doesn't matter. I'm just saying that you can't state as fact that she would want to live. There is a disagreement as to what she would have wanted, and that is what has been litigated.

The court's word is the final word. "Checks and Balances" are applied to the court through limiting jurisdiction, and requiring them to apply and interpret the laws as they exist.

This is not a situation of the state overstepping its bounds, its the exact opposite. This type of decision has been left to the states for two hundred years, and unless they are violating a persons constitutional rights, the federal government should have no say in the matter.

I'm sure you will say that her constitutional rights are being violated, but the courts and legal scholars would disagree.

There is no precedent for the courts to refer when it comes to her constitutional rights. Some dong said she said, while watching TV, that she didn't want to live like a vegetable should something happen to her. They took his effin word. He's a piece of trash and is morally bankrupt. Maybe that can be a new defense, "Well, your honor, I killed him because he said he no longer wanted to live", "Well, in that case, case dismissed". All of this is purely speculative at best and there is no way in hell this country should allow something as final as this to occur on speculation alone.

I will reiterate, the courts are WRONG!

fsquid Wrote:

Quote: So they're not allowed to have an evidentiary hearing? banghead.gif

8-12 years of arguing this and they need another evidentiary hearing?? I for one do not think that our courts are so inept that they would continue to rule the wrong way for 8-12 years. I guess I just have too much faith in my country.

I guess so. Strikes me as odd b/c there's no good reason for that.

You've seen the video footage, but casually dismiss it w/ no support for your position.

I'm a little more fond of truth than that.

fsquid Wrote:

Quote: So they're not allowed to have an evidentiary hearing? banghead.gif

8-12 years of arguing this and they need another evidentiary hearing?? I for one do not think that our courts are so inept that they would continue to rule the wrong way for 8-12 years. I guess I just have too much faith in my country.

Again...I could be wrong about that, I am a law student not a legal scholar.

Fsquid, it appears that we have very similar thoughts on this subject. I also think the courts have probably gotten it right, they are the only ones that have seen all of the evidence. Maybe we are both naive.

DrTorch Wrote:

fsquid Wrote:

Quote: So they're not allowed to have an evidentiary hearing? banghead.gif

8-12 years of arguing this and they need another evidentiary hearing?? I for one do not think that our courts are so inept that they would continue to rule the wrong way for 8-12 years. I guess I just have too much faith in my country.

I guess so. Strikes me as odd b/c there's no good reason for that.

You've seen the video footage, but casually dismiss it w/ no support for your position.

I'm a little more fond of truth than that.

The main difference is that the courts have seen the entire video tapes, not just the highlights.

wpblazer Wrote:I'm sure you will say that her constitutional rights are being violated, but the courts and legal scholars would disagree.

First, not ALL legal scholars disagree. So it is pretentious for you to write that.

Second, aren't we supposed to have government "for the people and by the people"? So what makes the "courts" suddenly so sacred? They are fallible you know.

Using the excuse, "the courts decided..." is the complete antithesis of a participatory government. It's also a logical fallacy. These debates don't tend to be based strictly on the law...that has become too convoluted for the layman. Instead these debates tend to be about the ethics of a situation...that's an area where any thinking person can contribute. And courts don't decide ethics.

RebelKev Wrote:While her state is being debated.......why in the hell would they remove the tube? When the final result is death, it is a travesty to allow this to occur. Some doctors say that there is no hope, some say there is. Again, this is akin to carrying out a death sentence while the criminal is in appeal.

The federal courts are not making rulings on her state. They are ruling on the merits of the case of the parents, basically looking at the history and deciding whether or not the parents could be successful in their appeal. Both courts have decided that there is no way for the parents to win, not that their daughter is untreatable. The latter has been decided many, many times already.

Quote:He's a piece of trash and is morally bankrupt.

You said this a couple of times without any evidence to back it up. You can use the word of the nurse who filed the affadavit, but upon reading that my only thought was that she was a little...off.

RebelKev Wrote:There is no precedent for the courts to refer when it comes to her constitutional rights. Some dong said she said, while watching TV, that she didn't want to live like a vegetable should something happen to her. They took his effin word. He's a piece of trash and is morally bankrupt. Maybe that can be a new defense, "Well, your honor, I killed him because he said he no longer wanted to live", "Well, in that case, case dismissed". All of this is purely speculative at best and there is no way in hell this country should allow something as final as this to occur on speculation alone.

I will reiterate, the courts are WRONG!

Kev,

I appreciate that you feel strongly about this, but I'm sure this isn't the first time this has happened. For some reason this case has just become very public.

The courts have followed the laws in the state of Florida, which I'm sure are similar to the laws in other states. If the laws are that bad, this case will lead to changes.

DrTorch Wrote:

wpblazer Wrote:I'm sure you will say that her constitutional rights are being violated, but the courts and legal scholars would disagree.

First, not ALL legal scholars disagree. So it is pretentious for you to write that.

Second, aren't we supposed to have government "for the people and by the people"? So what makes the "courts" suddenly so sacred? They are fallible you know.

Using the excuse, "the courts decided..." is the complete antithesis of a participatory government. It's also a logical fallacy. These debates don't tend to be based strictly on the law...that has become too convoluted for the layman. Instead these debates tend to be about the ethics of a situation...that's an area where any thinking person can contribute. And courts don't decide ethics.

I didn't say that all legal scholars would agree. However, I haven't seen anyone offer the opinion that her constitutional rights have been violated.

I never said that the courts decision ends the ethical debate in this case. The ethical debate can be separate from the legal debate. Legally, the courts will be the ultimate decision makers in this case. That's just how our system is set up.

I know the court system isn't infallible, but it is inherently less fallible than our elected officails because the ultimate court authorities (supreme court) are appointed for life (subject to good behavior) and aren't as politically motivated.

The courts are siding with death....and all on speculation. I don't see how that can be debated.

Quote:So what makes the "courts" suddenly so sacred? They are fallible you know.

Isn't that why we have an appeals process?

RebelKev Wrote:The courts are siding with death....and all on speculation. I don't see how that can be debated.

No the courts are siding that the husband would know Terri's wishes better than her family would. I can see that. I spend more time with my wife than I do my parents.

Also, when someone is in danger from a guardian, they are removed and placed into state custody. Why this isn't happening is beyond me. He wants her to die and uses a statement that has YET to be proven as his reason. This alone should halt all removal orders.

RebelKev Wrote:Also, when someone is in danger from a guardian, they are removed and placed into state custody. Why this isn't happening is beyond me. He wants her to die and uses a statement that has YET to be proven as his reason. This alone should halt all removal orders.

Yet, 12 years in court and over 30 judges later, they are still ruling the same thing.