Civil Disobedience and Terry Schaivo

[rtwngAvngr]

I have always believed, although I have rarely responded to any of your posts, that you are one of the least thoughtful, least articulate persons on this board. I just wanted you to know where I stand.

A fact-finder is the finder of fact in a court. Sometimes it is a jury, sometimes it is a judge, depending on the proceeding and wishes of the parties.

Yeah. start off with a personal attack. I guess I'm gettin to ya, Eh? I guess you're beginning to realize the foolhardiness of your opinions and getting pissed about it. Don't be a player hater.

So in this case it was the same judge, who was the fact finder. You presented it as if it was someone else. And in this case, the fact finder, the selfsame judge, just shut his brain to testimony he didn't like. If this is the kind of rogue judiciary you support then you're a totalitarian with no respect for law or the democratic processes which create the laws.

 

[ReillyT]

Yeah. start off with a personal attack. I guess I'm gettin to ya, Eh? I guess you're beginning to realize the foolhardiness of your opinions and getting pissed about it. Don't be a player hater.

So in this case it was the same judge, who was the fact finder. You presented it as if it was someone else. And in this case, the fact finder, the selfsame judge, just shut his brain to testimony he didn't like. If this is the kind of rogue judiciary you support then you're a totalitarian with no respect for law or the democratic processes which create the laws.

Surely you are not unaccustomed to personal attacks.

Yes, it was the trial judge who was the finder of fact. That is the law. You can look that up. Surely you will have respect for it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Surely you are not unaccustomed to personal attacks.

Yes, it was the trial judge who was the finder of fact. That is the law. You can look that up. Surely you will have respect for it.

Yes. And he ignored what he didn't like, and which did not support his agenda. That's not good legal ethics. It's unethical.

 

[ReillyT]

Yes. And he ignored what he didn't like, and which did not support his agenda. That's not good legal ethics. It's unethical.

If you don't like what the judge did, you file an appeal alleging he didn't act impartially or that he applied the law wrong. The Schindlers' did this, and all of the appeals courts rejected their arguments. As for whether he "ignored what he didn't like," you have no idea what his thought processes were except to the extent that he has written an opinion about the matter. He did write an opinion, which I have read, and it was a thoughtful and well-formed opinion at that.

 

[Mr. P]

It's obvious half of you folks don't have a clue how the judicial system really works.
Read all of ReillyTs' posts the last few pages, he/she knows what they're talking about.
It pretty simple really, it's not about what you may want or making you happy, the courts are about law and procedure. And no, they (Judges) don't make the law either.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If you don't like what the judge did, you file an appeal alleging he didn't act impartially or that he applied the law wrong. The Schindlers' did this, and all of the appeals courts rejected their arguments. As for whether he "ignored what he didn't like," you have no idea what his thought processes were except to the extent that he has written an opinion about the matter. He did write an opinion, which I have read, and it was a thoughtful and well-formed opinion at that.

So you think it's fine for judges to ignore the evidence which contradicts their polical agenda. Am I reading you right? Say it ain't so, Joe.

 

[ReillyT]

It's obvious half of you folks don't have a clue how the judicial system really works.
Read all of ReillyTs' posts the last few pages, he/she knows what they're talking about.
It pretty simple really, it's not about what you may want or making you happy, the courts are about law and procedure. And no, they (Judges) don't make the law either.

Thank you. I have precious few skills, but this is one of them.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It's obvious half of you folks don't have a clue how the judicial system really works.
Read all of ReillyTs' posts the last few pages, he/she knows what they're talking about.
It pretty simple really, it's not about what you may want or making you happy, the courts are about law and procedure. And no, they (Judges) don't make the law either.

Why don't you go back to your idiotic fluff threads, kay, jerky? this guy's an imbecile. We're figuring that out now. Why don't you stfu and learn something.

 

[ReillyT]

So you think it's fine for judges to ignore the evidence which contradicts their polical agenda. Am I reading you right? Say it ain't so, Joe.

Already discussed. Read the thread.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Already discussed. Read the thread.

I'll take that as a "yes that's my position".

If you really stand behind your position you should have no problem reiterating it with a yes or no. I guess even you are ashamed of yourself when it comes down to it.

 

[ReillyT]

I'll take that as a "yes that's my position".

If you really stand behind your position you should have no problem reiterating it with a yes or no. I guess even you are ashamed of yourself when it comes down to it.

I won't answer just yes or no to a loaded question. Please just look at posts 340, 347, and 353 and you will have your answer.

 

[Mr. P]

Thank you. I have precious few skills, but this is one of them.

Since my wife is a Judge I think I have a pretty good understanding of the system, this sort of thing is common disscusion around the house.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I won't answer just yes or no to a loaded question. Please just look at posts 340, 347, and 353 and you will have your answer.

I won't bother. It's not a loaded question. You can't answer. I'll just assume I'm right.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Since my wife is a Judge I think I have a pretty good understanding of the system, this sort of thing is common disscusion around the house.

What is your understanding p? judges have the right to ignore whatever they want?

Can you do anything besides hitch your wagon to reillyt's star?

 

[ReillyT]

Since my wife is a Judge I think I have a pretty good understanding of the system, this sort of thing is common disscusion around the house.

That's great about your wife. Is it a good thing or a bad thing that this is common discussion? This sort of stuff is common discussion with my wife as well, and sometimes we find we just have to let it go and talk about anything else.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

we find we just have to let it go and talk about anything else.

Do you decide this at the point when you're getting pounded into the ground, like here?

 

[Mr. P]

That's great about your wife. Is it a good thing or a bad thing that this is common discussion? This sort of stuff is common discussion with my wife as well, and sometimes we find we just have to let it go and talk about anything else.

Oh, sure there are times we don't see eye to eye..but we always understand the others' view...Or in my case I learn more about the law and procedure. Sometimes it doesn't make sense, but after some thought (not reaction) it does.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Oh, sure there are times we don't see eye to eye..but we always understand the others' view...Or in my case I learn more about the law and procedure. Sometimes it doesn't make sense, but after some thought (not reaction) it does.

So you think it's ok for judges to ignore any evidence they deem fit to ignore? Even after congress orders another trial in a completely constitutional fashion, as is the case here?

Could someone on the death squad go on record here? Jeesh.

 

[Mr. P]

So you think it's ok for judges to ignore any evidence they deem fit to ignore? Even after congress orders another trial in a completely constitutional fashion, as is the case here?

Could someone on the death squad go on record here? Jeesh.

Do you have relevant evidence that was ignored RWA? If so you may be able to present it to the 11th circuit here in Atlanta today, but ya need to get in gear and stop flappin them lips.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Do you have relevant evidence that was ignored RWA? If so you may be able to present it to the 11th circuit here in Atlanta today, but ya need to get in gear and stop flappin them lips.

Not me personally. but I know that several nurses were silenced about terry's true condition and that they were silenced. The judge should care about their testimony. To not care is judicial negligence.

Let's have a smackdown. I'll meet you at the lenox food court! Just kidding. I'm a lover, not a fighter. and yes I send young americans to die for my war for oil, because I'm a chickenhawk.