Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Universal Health Care? Heck, I've been an advocate for universal health care almost forever, and the wrong party enacts the laws for it. How refreshing!

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I give a flying $#%@ what the poll numbers are; and you should as well, for it shows how out of touch with America you are on this issue of allowing this poor woman to die in peace after years of torment...

But hey, there's no need to get snippy just b/c you're case is blown to hell....

Cycloptichorn

Belatedly you insert a phrase of simulated concern into your position. If a poll tells me to round up some ethnic group or other and imprison them, I will hardly regard it as being a reason to do so. I would rather be right and in the minority, especially when it comes to whether someone should die or not.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Thanks for the clarification Joe... but my point remains pretty much the same. There remains a void or deficiency in law between "married" and "legally married". It is precisely this deficiency that's being exploited to prevent Terri's true next of kin from being heard.

Would you have the courts decide this case based on what the law is or on what they think the law ought to be?

Hands down; I'd prefer their decisions are based on the Law. That's why it's imperative to write one that covers this apparently unanticipated situation. In establishing a more appropriate formula for determining "next of kin", neither Michael's nor Terri's parent's stated preferences should even be considered. Until the outcome of ALL the legal battles are complete; Terri should obviously be given the benefit of the doubt since she can be killed at a later date, but not revived.

Tell me Joe; why is it okay for her to have fewer rights than a convicted and condemned murderer?

0 Replies

In the human vernacular, "brain dead" has a final meaning to most of us.

0 Replies

Well, you are wrong in denying this woman the right to die, Brandon. Wrong.

Your party is also trying to turn this to their political gain like the scumbags they are. That's wrong as well.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

They avoided the universal healthcare issue by inserting this language into the bill

Quote:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.

The bill says

Quote:

Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act

I wonder if there will be a large rush to adopt Theresa Marie Schiavo.... just think, thousands of parents for the poor woman

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Even among evangelicals, 46 percent support removal of the feeding tube, as opposed to 44 percent who oppose. Conservatives support removal of the feeding tube 54-40.

Those of you who are arguing for keeping this poor dead lady alive are officially out of touch with the rest of America and our values....Cycloptichorn

When it comes to a person's life or death, who gives a flying $#%@ what the poll numbers are? Some of us were discussing right and wrong.

Republican neoconservatives obviously give enough of a flying $#%@ to politicize this to it's fullest in order to hold on to their religious nutball constituency. It also serves well in distracting the American people from, oh, DeLay's problems, Iraq, skyrocketing oil prices, Rumsfeld's continued incompetence, and the fact that a majority of Americans disagree with what the Republicans have been doing.

The Republican neocons may have to become much more agressive in cheating their way in the 2006 mid-term elections...

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Those of you who are arguing for keeping this poor dead lady alive are officially out of touch with the rest of America and our values.

Hey Joe... do you have that definition for Non Sequitur handy? Laughing

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Hands down; I'd prefer their decisions are based on the Law. That's why it's imperative to write one that covers this apparently unanticipated situation.

Agreed. And that law should be comprehensive enough to cover the next case.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

In establishing a more appropriate formula for determining "next of kin", neither Michael's nor Terri's parent's stated preferences should even be considered. Until the outcome of ALL the legal battles are complete; Terri should obviously be given the benefit of the doubt since she can be killed at a later date, but not revived.

If the law states that the husband is to act on behalf of his wife in cases such as these, any contrary decision would be based upon what someone thinks the law ought to be, not on what the law actually is.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Tell me Joe; why is it okay for her to have fewer rights than a convicted and condemned murderer?

Well, I can't recall congress running back to Washington for a special session and the president interrupting one of his many vacations to craft a bill to rescue a single condemned murderer, so I find it hard to accept the notion that Schiavo has somehow been deprived of any rights in this case.

0 Replies

Has anyone ever heard of a law adopted by Congress and signed by the President which applies to only ONE person, and which is clearly designed to excite the religious rightwing nutjobs? Especially with a clause such as this:

Quote:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.

Oooboy...

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Tell me Joe; why is it okay for her to have fewer rights than a convicted and condemned murderer?

What rights are you talking about, OCCOM BILL?

Do YOU think it's o.k. that the Republican neocons turn this completely into a hot political football for their own partisan gain?

I don't think so...

0 Replies

Yes, of course it's a political football.

Now, for the real take-away message here: If you don't want to be like Ms. Schiavo some day, make your intentions known IN WRITING and make sure they're where they can be accessed by the appropriate people.

And I don't mean delusional, if well-intentioned, parents who think they know what's best for their little girl...

0 Replies

Bill wrote:

Quote:

Until the outcome of ALL the legal battles are complete; Terri should obviously be given the benefit of the doubt since she can be killed at a later date, but not revived.

What is "all legal battles"? How many times does this have to occur. The feeding tube has been removed 3 times now. The removal of the tube has been stayed by various courts because of appeals over 10 times. The tube has been ordered to be reinserted 2 times so far. You don't think 7 years and a multitude of court rulings all eventually reaching the same conclusion are enough?

This is a non judgemental timeline that lists what has happened over the last 15 years.

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

Yes, of course it's a political football.

No, for the real take-away message here: If you don't want to be like Ms. Schiavo some day, make your intentions known IN WRITING and make sure they're where they can be accessed by the appropriate people.

And I don't mean delusional, if well-intentioned, parents who think they know what's best for their little girl...

That's a no-brainer, D'artagnan. Isn't it unbelievably sad that Congress can't actually TALK about THESE glaring issues instead, let alone the empathy that should exist on BOTH sides of this debate, whether it be the parents or Michael or Terry herself?

The Republican necons have firmly focused their "empathy" on those who will most likely vote for them in 2006. It is Tom DeLay's "empathy" that helps distract Americans from his ethical problems. It is Bush's "empathy" that distracts Americans from his myriad failings and sinking poll numbers.

And the list goes on and on...

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Bill wrote:

Quote:
Until the outcome of ALL the legal battles are complete; Terri should obviously be given the benefit of the doubt since she can be killed at a later date, but not revived.
What is "all legal battles"? How many times does this have to occur. The feeding tube has been removed 3 times now. The removal of the tube has been stayed by various courts because of appeals over 10 times. The tube has been ordered to be reinserted 2 times so far. You don't think 7 years and a multitude of court rulings all eventually reaching the same conclusion are enough?

This is a non judgemental timeline that lists what has happened over the last 15 years.

Perhaps OCCOM BILL can tell us how much longer and how many more legal battles it takes, as he seems to know. I'm very curious.

Is 15 years of judicial activism and early attempts to save Terry's life by her own husband just not enough? Are the opinions of professionals who can observe Terry first hand not as good as the Senate Majority leader's "video" diagnosis of Terry?

What else is left to do?

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

And I don't mean delusional, if well-intentioned, parents who think they know what's best for their little girl...

There's a saying among professionals here in e.g. homes for disabled: 'the are mothers [parents], who only want the best for their child'.

[And "yes" - I know how it looks like in hospices as well.]

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, you are wrong in denying this woman the right to die, Brandon. Wrong.

Your party is also trying to turn this to their political gain like the scumbags they are. That's wrong as well.

Cycloptichorn

So far, only the "former" husband has stated that they had a verbal agreement in this regard.

How can a Judge rule on a verbal agreement when only one party is there to discuss the so called agreement?

Maybe, this woman has a right to LIVE, in addition to a right to DIE.

The Feds should be looking at this case from a perspective of who has the legal right to make the decision, the "former" husband or the parents? Did the State Court rule properly in providing the "former" husband this right of decision.

Yet, both the dems and repup's are having a field day with the politics of their own agendas.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
In establishing a more appropriate formula for determining "next of kin", neither Michael's nor Terri's parent's stated preferences should even be considered. Until the outcome of ALL the legal battles are complete; Terri should obviously be given the benefit of the doubt since she can be killed at a later date, but not revived.

If the law states that the husband is to act on behalf of his wife in cases such as these, any contrary decision would be based upon what someone thinks the law ought to be, not on what the law actually is.

Couldn't a higher court rule that Terri's most fundamental constitutional rights would be violated by Florida Law's failure to address the estrangement of her husband as it relates to her next of kin status and therefore rule that her constitutional rights trump what they consider faulty Florida Legislation and even ask that Florida Legislators remedy their faulty Legislation... all without violating the sanctity of law?

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Tell me Joe; why is it okay for her to have fewer rights than a convicted and condemned murderer?

Well, I can't recall congress running back to Washington for a special session and the president interrupting one of his many vacations to craft a bill to rescue a single condemned murderer, so I find it hard to accept the notion that Schiavo has somehow been deprived of any rights in this case.

Touché. It appears she's getting above and beyond the consideration anyone could have reasonably hoped for. I was referring to previous and possibly future precedent, not this unprecedented flurry of activity.

0 Replies

A right to LIVE? She's not alive!

Do you realize the difference between existence and life?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Tell me Joe; why is it okay for her to have fewer rights than a convicted and condemned murderer?

What rights are you talking about, OCCOM BILL?

Do YOU think it's o.k. that the Republican neocons turn this completely into a hot political football for their own partisan gain?

I don't think so...

I'm no lawyer but I believe in this country of laws it is quite appropriate to attempt to set precedents out of individual hot cases. Suggesting that Terri's parent's behavior is indicative of anything other than the acts of loving parents who don't want their daughter killed is beyond idiotic. It is you who are playing political football because you don't want to believe your political opponents might actually empathize with her parent's plight to save their daughter. Your behavior is as callous as it is predictable.

And no, I don't know how much litigation is enough... But the woman lies dying in a way unbefitting of an animal or a vicious criminal, even while a Federal Judge is familiarizing himself with the facts of the case he'll be presiding over in about 20 minutes. That seems quite inappropriate to me.

0 Replies

Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know