mysteryman wrote:The womans granddaughter is her LEGAL GUARDIAN,and according to judge Greer,that trumps EVERYTHING ELSE.
Remember,he said that the legal guardian had the final say on everything
He said no such thing.
mysteryman wrote:This is the precedent that everyone was afraid of.
Now,a legal guardian can overrule the wishes of a patient,because the legal guardian has total control,according to judge Greer.
Not according to him.
mysteryman wrote:So,while this woman left a living will,according to judge Greer and the Terri Schiavo case,the legal guardian trumps everything.
No it doesn't.
But then you know that.
Because we've gone through this discussion TWICE already.
nimh wrote:mysteryman wrote:So,can my sister order his death,or cant she?
Not on the basis of the Schiavo case as precedent. The Court did not simply and merely judge in favour of Michael because he was the Guardian and the parents weren't, but because they deemed the testimony of him and his siblings more convincing than that of the family where it came to Terri's stated wishes on whether she'd want to live in such circumstances or not. This evaluation was done in some detail.
But we went through this whole discussion already - Parados outlined it pages ago. We're just going through the same moves over and over again now:
parados wrote:[It was h]ardly a case of "he said, she said". I think Nimh has posted extensively from the court rulings. You are free to disagree with the courts decision but don't turn it into something it wasn't. The court looked at a lot of evidence in this case. [..]
Several people testified as to Terri's wishes on both sides. The court looked at that testimony and made a decision based on what it felt was true and what wasn't. The court included its reasoning in its decision. The husband prevailed when it came to Terri's wishes not because he was next of kin but because the preponderance of evidence was on his side. When it came to Terri's medical condition, the husband prevailed because all credible medical evidence pointed to Terri being in PVS. Again, the court wrote extensively about why it ruled the way it did. [..]
The court used the "clear and convincing" standard that Debra demanded [..]. Judge Greer wrote that the evidence was "clear and convincing". The appeals court has said there is not any evidence that the "clear and convincing" standard wasn't met.
Note again: Michael Schiavo prevailed when it came to Terri's wishes
not simply because he was the Guardian, but because according to Judge Greer the preponderance of
evidence was on his side, and he argued so by evaluating each piece. You may disagree with his evaluation, but it was
not simply a question of "he's the Giardian/next of kin so he gets to decide".
It would seem as though the preponderance of BS is squarely on mysterman's side.
What will mysterman attempt next in furthering the neocon rationale regarding Terri Shiavo? I'm sure we'll find out soon...
The bottom line here seems to be that the neocons just don't like judges when they rule against their theocratic ideology, and therefore are resorting to enflaming their constituents into an anti-judicial frenzy. They're even having seminars under the auspices of such stellar organizations like
Senator Cornyn's sick and disgusting attempt at connecting the latest violent spats with judges to the Terri Shiavo incident only gives rabid neocons the excuse to go out and either intimidate, threaten, or even kill, a U.S. judge. And if a judge IS murdered in yet another unrelated situation to Terri, then Cornyn will continue to sound like the ass that he is and say "I told you so..."
These neocon idiots have no idea what they could be potentially releasing into our courtrooms. If we enter a period of judicial terrorism, we will all know (and remember) where the directives for such egregious acts came from...
Quote, "These neocon idiots have no idea what they could be potentially releasing into our courtrooms.:
Dookie, I'm not afraid what these neocon idiots are doing to our court system, but how they are increasing the potential for violence in this country. They are spreading so much religious and political dogma into our country that most people can't see the damage being perpetrated against all Americans. It's really frightening.
c.i.
As there has already been ideologically unrelated violent acts as of recent, and the Terri Shiavo case is still fresh in neochristian's minds, Senator Cornyn is desperately hoping to put two and two together for his moronic constituents and then stand back and let the cards fall where they may.
This violence could very well start in the courts.
We used to enjoy a relatively peaceful country until Bush and has gang took over the white house. "I'm a uniter, not a divider" is the oxymoron of the century.
It makes ya wonder just how divorced the neocons truly are from reality...
Dookiestix wrote:It makes ya wonder just how divorced the neocons truly are from reality...
As divorced as I am from my first wife. She passed away a few years ago.
NYTimes.com > Washington
DeLay Defends Effort to Rein In the Courts
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: April 13, 2005
WASHINGTON, April 13 - The House majority leader, Tom DeLay, deflected all questions about his ethical conduct and his political future at a news conference today, insisting instead that he would continue his crusade against what he views an activist judiciary by ordering the Judiciary Committee to investigate the decisions of federal judges in the Terri Schiavo case.
At the crowded news conference - his first question-and-answer session with reporters since a fellow Republican, Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, called for him to resign his leadership post and another, Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, said Mr. DeLay must provide explanations to the public - the majority leader dismissed questions about ethics and his political future.
"I'm not here to discuss the Democrats' agenda," Mr. DeLay said. Instead, he renewed his complaints about "judicial activism," saying that reining in the courts was well within the purview of Congress.
"Congress has constitutionally mandated oversight responsibilities over the judiciary, just like it has over the executive," Mr. DeLay said, "and we would be shirking our constitutional obligation if we did not look at these issues as they come up."
Yet Republicans continued to debate and comment on Mr. DeLay. President Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, said, "We support his efforts, along with the efforts of other congressional leaders, to move forward on the agenda that the American people want us to enact." Asked if the majority leader and the president were friends, Mr. McClellan replied that the president does consider Mr. DeLay a friend, but suggested he's more a business associate than a social pal. "I think there are different levels of friendship with anybody."
In the House, Republican lawmakers continued to express support for Mr. DeLay. As they emerged from a closed-door morning meeting today, several characterized the charges against the leader as a smear campaign.
But Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, said in an interview with CBS News that it was time for Mr. DeLay to stop blaming Democrats and address the American people.
"Well, that's the famous Hillary Clinton defense," Mr. Gingrich said. "This is the vast left-wing, you know, conspiracy as opposed to her description of a vast right-wing conspiracy."
Bush has stepped away from DeLay.
They didn't like each other in Texas. As Gov., Bush was trying to influence the House Republicans to make some allowances for poorer families in some bill (can't remember), and DeLay said last time he looked Bush didn't have a vote.
Hmm.
<purses lips>
Another one bites the dust.
We don't need that type hanging around the neck of our party.
"Bush didn't have a vote." ROTFLMAO
The Texas governor has little real power, other than the veto and bully pulpit. That's why Texans scoff behind their sleeves when Bush takes credit for things the legislature did on his watch.
edgarblythe wrote:The Texas governor has little real power, other than the veto and bully pulpit. That's why Texans scoff behind their sleeves when Bush takes credit for things the legislature did on his watch.
Why, then, do so many point blame at him for things that the Texas legislature did on his watch? They need Texans like you to set them straight.
What's he blamed for? Did he do it or did the legislature do it? The Texas legislature only meets for sessions which are I think every six months, is that right edgarblythe? Who's driving when Austin's empty of legislators?
Ticomaya wrote:edgarblythe wrote:The Texas governor has little real power, other than the veto and bully pulpit. That's why Texans scoff behind their sleeves when Bush takes credit for things the legislature did on his watch.
Why, then, do so many point blame at him for things that the Texas legislature did on his watch? They need Texans like you to set them straight.
I'll bet it's because he's a dick ....
Ticomaya wrote:edgarblythe wrote:The Texas governor has little real power, other than the veto and bully pulpit. That's why Texans scoff behind their sleeves when Bush takes credit for things the legislature did on his watch.
Why, then, do so many point blame at him for things that the Texas legislature did on his watch? They need Texans like you to set them straight.
The same reason people give him credit for what the Texas legislature did on his watch. They don't know Texas politics.
The Lt. Governor has more real power than the Governor. Haven't we had this discussion before?
