DrewDad wrote:Thanks, Brandon, for your no-doubt expert opinion on what Terri Schiavo's existence is, gleaned by your no-doubt extensive voyeurism, er, research online, via television sound bites, and radio commentary.
Nevermind what actual doctors with actual specialization and actual experience who have actually examined the actual patient might have to say....
Not a very serious answer to my post, which I wonder if you did more than skim. All I said was that experts and people close to her disagreed as to whether she was self-aware, and that if she was, and wanted to remain so, it is murder no matter what any court said. At no point in that post did I claim the expertise you say I did.
I haven't been on this site that long but I would appreciate a bit of advice. Is it compulsory to be sarcastic or is it optional? Just wondering.
Sarcasm is okay, but personal attacks are not. We're supposed to stay on topic, but that "rule" is not always followed. BTW, Welcome to A2K.
Thank you on both those responses c.i.
reelection support
Schiavo attorney contributed to judge?
Michael Schiavo lawyer gave to judge's campaign
George Felos made contribution to Greer day after key ruling by court in Terri's case
March 25, 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The judge who tried the Terri Schiavo case and most recently rejected Gov. Jeb Bush's request to intervene, received a campaign contribution from the lawyer pressing for the brain-injured woman's death, raising questions of a conflict of interest.
According to Florida's Department of State, Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge George W. Greer received a contribution of $250 for his 2004 re-election campaign from Felos & Felos, the law firm of George Felos. Felos, known as a "right-to-die" advocate, represents Terri Schiavo's estranged husband, Michael Schiavo, who won a court order from Greer to have the woman's life-sustaining feeding tube removed one week ago. The contribution's apparent conflict of interest was raised by an Internet site investigating the Schiavo case, the Empire Journal, and by Rev. D. James Kennedy's group Center for Reclaiming America.
The contribution from Felos came May 7, 2004, one day after Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge Douglas Baird ruled "Terri's Law" unconstitutional. The Florida Legislature's measure was designed to enable Gov. Bush to intervene in the previous instance in which Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed. The contribution from Felos was the only one made that day, indicating it was not part of a fund-raising effort. The Empire Journal also reported contributions to Greer were made by three other lawyers who represented Michael Schiavo at various stages in the case. Deborah Bushnell, Gwyneth Stanley and Stephen G. Nilsson each contributed at least $250 to Greer's re-election campaign, as did court-appointed attorneys representing the husband's interest, Pacarek & Herman and Richard Pearse.
WND attempted to reach the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, the independent body that investigates complaints against state judges, but there was no response. Felos' office in Dunedin, Fla., also could not be reached.
The Empire Journal notes that in Florida, a judge is not required to recuse himself if he receives a contribution from an attorney in a case over which he presides. Nevertheless, a contribution can establish the appearance of impropriety, and the state's code of judicial conduct requires a judge to remove himself in such a case.
Ronald D. Rotunda, professor of law at George Mason University, told the Empire Journal he sees such contributions as problematic. He cites a 2002 poll of the American Bar Association concluding 84 percent of all Americans are concerned that the impartiality of judges is compromised by their need to raise campaign contributions. Rotunda said judicial campaign contributions constitute or appear to constitute a tacit quid pro quo in which the judge favors or tilts towards the contributor-litigant.
WorldNetDaily.com
These guys are reclaiming America?
Why do I get the feeling these are not native Americans?
Quote:and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law....
We've settled that part of the argument, right? We haven't subsumed into a monarchy overnight or some kind of petty fiefdom as the Randall Terry backers appear to be seeking in Florida. Have we? In what is a bizarro twist the right to lifers now are more angry (anger is their most fervent product) with the established powers than they are with Michael Schiavo. Is that an improvement?
They seem to be upset that Governor Jeb (Weasel) Bush or George (I'll fly anywhere for anything that smells like Jesus) Bush haven't simply sent in some kind of mob of do-gooders to, to uh, to, to uh uh, to, well, they don't really know what they would do but they would do
something.
What wouldn't this bunch do to get their way?
If Randall Terry was a Governor what would he do?
Joe(There's a reason I didn't ask WWJD.)Nation
The government has a history of ignoring what the courts say in Florida.
The last time it happened,it was the Clinton administration ignoring the law and the courts,both state and federal,to do what they wanted in Florida.
The left applauded that decision,but opposes the govt this time.
That doesnt make sense to me at all.
Short memories and in the big picture, this is not a big issue. To me anyway.
woiyo- I am not certain about "short memories", but I think that this issue is extremely important. It illustrated that there are individuals in government who would do an end run around the Constitution, in order to solidify their political base. I think that is an abomination!
I think the election will not be about Terri exactly, but she is now part of the culture war. Even Jesse Jackson attempting to get the feeding tube reinserted will not keep the fundamentalists from blaming liberals. In the final analysis, it is all about blaming liberals and consolidating Republican power. Time has a way of dulling public perception in their favor.
The republicans will not lose one vote from their core constituency. However it may have some little effect upon the vote of the swing voters.
OK, so maybe I am a "swing" voter. I have a very long memory, and will not vote for anyone who attempted to usurp the privacy rights of a family, and trample on the Constitution. I consider that a very serious breach.
Now, if the Democrats can come up with moderate candidates, one who will not attempt to "give away the store", I will certainly vote for that person.
Phoenix32890 wrote:But Mehlman refused to discuss possible political implications. ``This is about a very difficult situation a family went through. It's not about politics,'' he said.
If only they'd realized that earlier and stayed the hell outta it... Since when is "a very difficult situation a family went through" a matter for Congress?
Brandon9000 wrote:DrewDad wrote:Thanks, Brandon, for your no-doubt expert opinion on what Terri Schiavo's existence is, gleaned by your no-doubt extensive voyeurism, er, research online, via television sound bites, and radio commentary.
Nevermind what actual doctors with actual specialization and actual experience who have actually examined the actual patient might have to say....
Not a very serious answer to my post, which I wonder if you did more than skim. All I said was that experts and people close to her disagreed as to whether she was self-aware, and that if she was, and wanted to remain so, it is murder no matter what any court said. At no point in that post did I claim the expertise you say I did.
Beg pardon. Thanks for your reasonable reply. Apparently I missed the "if" in "
if she knew she existed."
Phoenix32890 wrote:OK, so maybe I am a "swing" voter. I have a very long memory, and will not vote for anyone who attempted to usurp the privacy rights of a family, and trample on the Constitution. I consider that a very serious breach.
Now, if the Democrats can come up with moderate candidates, one who will not attempt to "give away the store", I will certainly vote for that person.
Having said that,did you vote for Gore in 2000?
Remember,the Clinton admin did EXACTLY the same thing in 2000 that you are complaining about this admion doing.
In April of 2000,the govt used "federal troops" to remove a little boy,even though a state court AND the 11th circuit court of appeals in Atlanta had ruled AGAINST the govt.
The govt decided to ignore the law,and many on the left applauded that decision.
Why was it ok for the govt to ignore the courts then,but not ok for them to do it now?
Phoenix32890 wrote:mysteryman- I voted for Gore in 2000- I did not like Gore OR Bush, but felt that Gore was the "lesser of the two evils".
I voted for Bush in 2004. To me, Kerry was a non-entity, with no preceivable agenda, who just floated with the wind.
If either party cannot come up with a decent candidate, again in 2008, I will be obliged to go along with my "lesser of two evils" scenario.
I have always believed that in order to keep things "honest" the President should be of one party, the majority of Congress, the other. I had been concerned that, in the recent past, that the liberals had too much power. Now it has swung the other way, with the President pandering to the entreme end of conservative ideology. Hopefully, every pendulum eventually reaches a state of equilibrium.
Quote:Remember,the Clinton admin did EXACTLY the same thing in 2000 that you are complaining about this admion doing.
Please don't attempt to put me on the defensive by illustrating how one party or another pulled some devious crap. I know all about it. Personally, I think that the vast majority of politicians are whores, and attempt to ferret out the best of a bad lot, when I am in the voting booth.
I'm not trying to put you on the defensive.
I was trying to point out that if you complain about the govt doing something,then you should hold that same standard to EVERY admin,not just the one you dislike.
