Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Joe Nation, Thank you for your post "Posted: April 2nd 2005, 08:53 Post: 1258609 -" It summarizes in a nutshell what this country is all about.

I'm sure your solicitude, in this regard, also extends to all the condemned murderers in Texas and elsewhere who were given a death sentence, at least in part, due to faulty lawyering.

Thanks for making me spray tea onto the monitor, Joe.

ehBeth, Hope you didn't short circuit your house.

Joe, a great post. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Cycloptichorn

And Joe goes right on to build a straw man rather than deal with the idea presented. And as usual there is a chorus of those approving it.

Speaking of ideas presented and not dealt with ...

Foxfyre, have you looked at the funding of the Schindler legal team ...

or the involvement of lawyers at state and national levels for the Bush angle? All bad lawyers?


Michael Schiavo had competent lawyers, the Schindlers and Bushes had incompetent lawyers, the 20 or so judges involved were incompetent judges. Is that truly how it looks to you?

Doesn't it appear to you that the bottom line in this case was Judge Greer?

Judge Greer and most of the federal judges and the Supreme Court judges. Pretty good support, I would assume.

Republican-appointee, Baptist, Judge Greer?

Only one of many players from my reading. If his decision had been faulty, the majority of the appeals would have been successful. The Philanthropy Roundtable is one of many groups that threw a lot of money at the lawyers on the Schindler's team to keep it going - if there was something truly wrong with the original decision, you'd think the team would have found it.

And Michael Schiavos lawyers threw money at Judge Greer's re-election campaign. So it probably is a wash ehBeth. The point is, the Schindler's attorney did not raise certain issues that might or might not have changed Judge Greer's decision. I'm no attorney.....are you?.....but I have been listening to the post mortems presented by talking heads in the legal profession as well as those attorneys offering informed opinions on various threads in A2K related to this.

No, it is not a wash, Foxfyre.

If Judge Greer's original decision was made in error, there were more than a dozen other judges who had an opportunity to rectify that decision when it came before them.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My current occupation is not something I will post publicly.

As one of my co-posters has pointed out privately, there are still too few women in some employment areas IRL - makes us a bit vulnerable to provide too many clues.

Can you cite any instance where I have said Judge Greer's opinion was rendered illegally? Do you understand the concept of Straw Man?

Fox keeps talking about "straw man" like she knows what she's talking about, because she disagrees with all the judges that have decided this case, yet have not provided one iota of legal support for her opinion. Her "emotional" opinion of this case is the "straw man."

Yes, I do understand the concept.

I also understand that you often don't answer questions directed to you, Foxfyre.

You seemed to be under the impression that the Schindlers had "a" lawyer. They had a team of lawyers, as did Mr. Schiavo.



Are you trying to say that the very well-funded Schindler team, as well as the various lawyers who considered this for Jeb Bush as well as President Bush, were incompetent?

ehBeth, All fox is trying to do is argue all the straw man issues of this case without speaking to the chronology of what really happened to Terri (brain damaged when she had the heart attack) and the legal issues involved. All of the correct issues of this case has been discussed ad nauseum. Those who disagree with our legal system are the ones with the problem; not the people who have agreed with all the medical and legal issues involved.

I answer all question directed to me by people I respect ehBeth. I generally ignore those who choose to use overt or direct ad hominem attacks in lieu of reasoned discussion. And I may answer the question in the way I believe it is actually answered and generally do not allow my answer to be dictated by others. And if that isn't satisfactory to you, I would most earnestly encourage you to just ignore my posts.

"Reasoned discussion." ROFLMAO

Thanks. Coming from someone I rarely agree with on anything, I take that as a big compliment. But I have to confess to intellectual doping here: As we say in Germany, Ein Blick ins Gesetzbuch erleichtert die Rechtsfindung. (That's roughtly: "Looking into the statute helps in finding the law.") Lawyer or not, heeding this advice gives you an unfair advantage over many other participants in a debate like this.

Nevertheless, thanks for doing the same thing, for enlightening me about how the processes of admitting and appealing against the admission of hearsay work, and for providing such pertinent sources for what you said. I hadn't thought about using the exception you suggested, though it makes a lot of sense now. And I was also unaware how many chances the Schindlers had to object to the admission of hearsay in court. Both points were new and interesting to me.

lawyers
I find this discussion very interesting. If Foxfyre will read the timeline site I posted, she will find that the Schindlers have gone through a number or lawyers. The lawyers either fired the Schindlers or the Schindlers fired them. This usually means the lawyers and clients think the case is weak or they can't get along. Meanwhile, Michael Schiavo has had one attorney throughout the entire episode. Strong case and good working relationship? Probably.

In fact, if everyone read the timeline, there would be less unfactural statements and bickering because the actual documents are there for reference. Of course, if someone doesn't want to deal with the actual facts and post their opinions, be my guest.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=48601&highlight=

BBB