Michael Schiavo contradicts himself in King Interview

[Bonnie]

The Constitution contains no provision expliciting declaring that the powers of the three branches of the federal government shall be separated.
James Madison, in his original draft of what would become the Bill of Rights, included a proposed amendment that would make the separation of powers explicit, but his proposal was rejected, largely because his fellow members of Congress thought the separation of powers principle to be implicit in the structure of government under the Constitution. Madison's proposed amendment, they concluded, would be a redundancy.

The first article of the Constitution says "ALL legislative powers...shall be vested in a Congress." The second article vests "the executive power...in a President." The third article places the "judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court" and "in such inferior Courts as the Congress...may establish."

Separation of powers serves several goals. Separation prevents concentration of power (seen as the root of tyranny) and provides each branch with weapons to fight off encroachment by the other two branches. As James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers (No. 51), "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." Clearly, our system of separated powers is not designed to maximize efficiency; it is designed to maximize freedom.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/separationofpowers.htm



Equality of the branches
The Constitution does not explicitly indicate the pre-eminence of any particular branch of government. One may accurately claim that the judiciary has historically been the weakest of the three branches. Its power to exercise judicial review—its sole meaningful check on the other two branches—was itself doubted by many. In fact, the Court exercised its power to strike down an unconstitutional Act of Congress only twice prior to the Civil War: in Marbury v. Madison (1803) and Scott v. Sandford (1857). While the Supreme Court has since then made more extensive use of judicial review, it cannot be said to have as much political power as either Congress or the President.

http://www.answers.com/topic/separation-of-powers-under-the-united-states-constitution

 

[MissileMan]

Actually the information came from sworn afidavits from nurses that took care of her, and that she was eating on her own until "hubby" demanded a feeding tube, and no more therapy to that end.

Can you post some links to them...I'd like to read them

 

[Itsthetruth]

The Constitution contains no provision expliciting declaring that the powers of the three branches of the federal government shall be separated.
James Madison, in his original draft of what would become the Bill of Rights, included a proposed amendment that would make the separation of powers explicit, but his proposal was rejected, largely because his fellow members of Congress thought the separation of powers principle to be implicit in the structure of government under the Constitution. Madison's proposed amendment, they concluded, would be a redundancy.

The first article of the Constitution says "ALL legislative powers...shall be vested in a Congress." The second article vests "the executive power...in a President." The third article places the "judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court" and "in such inferior Courts as the Congress...may establish."

Separation of powers serves several goals. Separation prevents concentration of power (seen as the root of tyranny) and provides each branch with weapons to fight off encroachment by the other two branches. As James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers (No. 51), "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." Clearly, our system of separated powers is not designed to maximize efficiency; it is designed to maximize freedom.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/separationofpowers.htm



Equality of the branches
The Constitution does not explicitly indicate the pre-eminence of any particular branch of government. One may accurately claim that the judiciary has historically been the weakest of the three branches. Its power to exercise judicial review—its sole meaningful check on the other two branches—was itself doubted by many. In fact, the Court exercised its power to strike down an unconstitutional Act of Congress only twice prior to the Civil War: in Marbury v. Madison (1803) and Scott v. Sandford (1857). While the Supreme Court has since then made more extensive use of judicial review, it cannot be said to have as much political power as either Congress or the President.

http://www.answers.com/topic/separation-of-powers-under-the-united-states-constitution

Thanks for backing up my post.

 

[Bonnie]

Can you post some links to them...I'd like to read them

Schiavo, they assert, was denied rehabilitation even though there was evidence that at times she could swallow on her own. "I personally saw her swallow the ice water and never saw her gag," said Law. "On three or four occasions I personally fed Terri mouthfuls of Jello, which she was able to swallow and enjoyed immensely. I did not do it more often only because I was afraid of being caught by Michael."

http://www.spiritdaily.com/schiavoalert.htm


There are tons more from various sources im sure you wil say this one is somehow biased, all you have to do is look, there are three nurses specifically that make these sworn statements, all of whom cared for her for at least a year each.

 

[dilloduck]

If all she can do is take a shit and her parents want to deal with that--WHY KILL HER ?

 

[Bonnie]

Thanks for backing up my post.

Well if your position is that Bush was well within his rights to intervene into our runaway judicial system in this case, and that the president does in fact have a bit more power than the courts then Im happy to back you up!!

 

[Itsthetruth]

We have been over this many times, she can eat and drink on her own, she was being fed with a tube becasue it's easier that way.

Nonsense! Unfortunately, she would not recognize a glass of water or dish of food if you spilled it on her head!

I think the hospital staff would feed her and give her liquid if they could!

They can't. It would be like trying to feed a pet rock!

She has as much understanding and awareness of what is happening around her, including to her body, as a potato chip! Don't you folks get it?

Yikes! I can't believe how blinded to reality some people can be.

Put your tin-foil hats on!

 

[dilloduck]

Nonsense! Unfortunately, she would not recognize a glass of water or dish of food if you spilled it on her head!

I think the hospital staff would feed her and give her liquid if they could!

They can't. It would be like trying to feed a pet rock!

She has as much understanding and awareness of what is happening around her, including to her body, as a potato chip! Don't you folks get it?

Yikes! I can't believe how blinded to reality some people can be.

Put your tin-foil hats on!

Her hubby tried HIS way of rehab for 15 fricken years( against her wishes)---whose the blind one here. Is he afraid the parents might succeed in helping her move a finger and then his ego would be shattered ??

 

[Itsthetruth]

Her hubby tried HIS way of rehab for 15 fricken years( against her wishes)---whose the blind one here. Is he afraid the parents might succeed in helping her move a finger and then his ego would be shattered ??

If she were capable of moving a finger it would probably be her middle one as she's salutes the so-called "right to lifers"!

She has no control over her fingers, her head, her toes, her mouth or even her brain. She's a human "vegetable". Let her finally pass in peace without being exploited by self-serving right-wing politicians trying to promote their careers on her back.

 

[Itsthetruth]

Not a single poster has commented on the "right to lifers" support of Texas law that permits hospitals to "pull the plug" on people who do not have cash or health insurance to pay their hospital bills!

Gee. I wonder why that is? It couldn't be right-wing double standard politics, could it?

 

[Avatar4321]

Not a single poster has commented on the "right to lifers" support of Texas law that permits hospitals to "pull the plug" on people who do not have cash or health insurance to pay their hospital bills!

Gee. I wonder why that is? It couldn't be right-wing double standard politics, could it?

Or maybe because its in another thread and discussed in detail and your just and ass who cant read.

 

[5stringJeff]

Not a single poster has commented on the "right to lifers" support of Texas law that permits hospitals to "pull the plug" on people who do not have cash or health insurance to pay their hospital bills!

Gee. I wonder why that is? It couldn't be right-wing double standard politics, could it?

Possibly, that's because it has nothing to do with Terry Schaivo. And if you commented on that law in a Terry Schaivo thread, it likely got ignored. Now if you want to start a thread about that law, you are more than welcome.

And, for the record, I think that's a bad law.

 

[ReillyT]

Since I don't have the legal expertise you have, the only conclusions I can reach is that within the judicial system there are judges that have a power grab going on with the other branches of government, especially Greer, Whittamore, and some on the 11th circuit court of appeals who essentially told Bush, Congress to look at this case Denovo, a big FU, and Gov Bush, the Fla legislature, and now Fla protective services a big FU. Greer is not qualified to sit on the bench he occupies but, he, rather than admit this and let additional relevant information be argued he would rather have an innocent woman die.

Her husband is just a bastard, and the public buys into all the false information about how many times this case has been reviewed by 19 judges some actually voting to reinsert Terri's feeding tube, but still they all looked at the same information that was presented 8 years ago of course if you look at the same case with no new relevant information being allowed your going to get the same outcome. And the public also buys into bullshit buzz phrases like dying with dignity. I still shake my head in total disbelief, and sadness.

The Federal Courts only have the ability to look at the due process question, not to rejudicate the case in the first instance. The Constitution does not provide the federal government with the authority to pass laws on probate/ family issues like this. That power is reserved to the states. The federal courts examined whether an injunction was in order to have the feeding tube re-inserted, and using the appropriate test (likelihood of success on the merits in the underlying case and possibility of irreparable harm), determined that there was no base to order the tube reinserted.

Greer did look at new information and heard testimony from new witnesses as recently as 2001-2002, and determined that their testimony did not alter his opinion of the case.

I don't see the power grab. Every judge in this case has followed the law as it exists, with the possible exception of the decision of the judge not to order the tube reinstated while the federal subpoena was dealt with. However, I still believe he had the authority there as well, as that was clearly a federal attempt to intrude into this state matter.

On another note, Musicman, if you read this, I think that I agree with you that it was proper (not appropriate) for the Congress to pass the federal review law.

 

[Bonnie]

ReilyT..Greer did look at new information and heard testimony from new witnesses as recently as 2001-2002, and determined that their testimony did not alter his opinion of the case.

If this is truly the case then Greer is wrong! Plain and simple, and since every judge that looked at the case after Greer seeing only the info he decided to let in then Terri really never stood a good chance here. Can you link to something that shows just what he actually looked at and considered in making his judgement.
And since when does a probate judge with no real law experience other than zoning law and a job as county commissioner qualify to determine life or death matters???

 

[dilloduck]

If this is truly the case then Greer is wrong! Plain and simple, and since every judge that looked at the case after Greer seeing only the info he decided to let in then Terri really never stood a good chance here. Can you link to something that shows just what he actually looked at and considered in making his judgement.
And since when does a probate judge with no real law experience other than zoning law and a job as county commissioner qualify to determine life or death matters???

ANDDDddddd there are sealed documents that he refuses to unseal---now who is he protecting here I wonder?

 

[musicman]

Cool, Reilly. I hear you.

 

[ReillyT]

If this is truly the case then Greer is wrong! Plain and simple, and since every judge that looked at the case after Greer seeing only the info he decided to let in then Terri really never stood a good chance here. Can you link to something that shows just what he actually looked at and considered in making his judgement.

There is no trial judge opinion, or at least none that I can find a link to on the cite I use to research this case. http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

However, there is a appeals court decision discussing the new witnesses and finding that Greer did not abuse his authority in not finding them or their testimony sufficient to overturn his decision. The opinion can be read at:
http://www.2dca.org/opinion/October 17, 2001/2d01-3626.pdf

How do you know that Greer is wrong? He certainly knows a great deal more about this case than you or I. On what basis do you say that he made the wrong decision?

And since when does a probate judge with no real law experience other than zoning law and a job as county commissioner qualify to determine life or death matters???

Since the people of the State of Florida elected him as a judge. Don't discount that he was a zoning lawyer. Lawyers practice all different kinds of law, but the legal skills they use remain the same. Would you rather he have been a corporate attorney dealing with mergers and acquisitions? He is still a lawyer and has legal experience.

 

[Bonnie]

Doctors are simply ignored
By Marc Siegel
Terri Schiavo has lingered for 15 years in what many neurologists call a persistent vegetative state. Because the public has seen her plight largely through a political prism — right to life vs. right to die — core medical issues have been overlooked and distorted.
Regardless of where one stands on this issue, as a physician, I'm disturbed that the medicine of this case has become an afterthought. Doctors have become the medical marionettes as the courts and attorneys pull the strings.

Though most end-of-life specialists are willing to remove feeding tubes, many of the rest of us — physicians who treat severely disabled patients — are not. The only consensus in the medical community on this issue is that we should be consulted, not expected to blindly follow judicial decrees.

Much has been made about the fact that Schiavo's life lacks quality, but this assertion is not a permission slip to end it. The pathway to death should not be inhumane just because more humane choices, such as physician-assisted suicide, are not legal. Because she breathes on her own and is not in apparent pain, there is no quick or rational way to end her life. Until there is, we should let her live.

Most neurologists would contend that Schiavo cannot feel anything, even pain or thirst. The problem with this assertion is that no one has come back from such a state of neurological impairment to verify or dispute this contention. She reportedly lacks upper brain function, meaning her thinking centers are still, but it cannot be proved that the lower brain would not allow her to feel discomfort.

I recall one brain-damaged patient in my hospital practice, not quite as sick as Terri, who did wake up. Initially, his eyes were open, but he didn't respond. For months, he was fed through a tube, until the day when his heart rate began to subtly increase whenever his family visited. A few months later, he was conversing and eventually was discharged to resume his life as a waiter in a restaurant where he had been the chef.

Could Terri be blessed with such an outcome? There's no indication from the court-appointed physicians that she could. Even so, the contrast is a useful reminder that each case should be weighed on its own merits — the medical ones, not solely the legal ones.

Drawing a line in which one life has quality and another doesn't is contentious enough, but extending this to an initiative to withdraw nutrition is a legal move that doesn't adequately consider the medicine. Even if Terri had a living will, many physicians would still not feel comfortable executing it in this manner. It shouldn't be assumed that doctors can simply be ordered to starve their patients.

It is generally accepted that a physician's role in health care is to prolong life or relieve undue suffering. The only time a true medical debate emerges is when these two roles come into conflict. The Schiavo case is not such a time. It is difficult to argue for euthanasia because she does not appear to be suffering. Working to prolong her life simply means providing nutrition, which physicians usually do without endless debate.

The case of a terminal cancer patient, for instance, is quite different because, by increasing morphine, a physician may legitimately choose relieving suffering over prolonging life. Treating cancer, a doctor can sometimes justify ending a pain-wracked life.

The most disturbing aspect of the Schiavo case is that the doctors are portrayed as those who will simply abide by the final decision and either put the tube back in or keep it out — a job for a medical yo-yo rather than a professional. But doctors are not court-appointed mechanics. Our own code of ethics and standards must drive us. Removing feeding tubes is not part of my job description. It should not be part of a physician's job at a Florida hospice either.

This doesn't mean that I'm against hastening death to reduce suffering. In certain cases — use of pain medications to treat the terminally ill, for instance — such actions might be warranted. But the end in any case would be rapid and controlled by medication.

In the Schiavo case, a physician removing a feeding tube of a patient who does not appear to be suffering could lead to a protracted, uncomfortable death. This would undermine a physician's basic role — first, do no harm — as suggested by the Hippocratic Oath.

Marc Siegel is a clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-03-22-schiavo-medicine_x.htm

 

[Bonnie]

ReillyT..Since the people of the State of Florida elected him as a judge. Don't discount that he was a zoning lawyer. Lawyers practice all different kinds of law, but the legal skills they use remain the same. Would you rather he have been a corporate attorney dealing with mergers and acquisitions? He is still a lawyer and has legal experience.

Come on Reilly, I would hope for a lawyer well versed and well experienced in Constitutional Law??? This judge was a county commissioner now he's a Chief Judge deciding life and death?? Are you serious??

 

[ReillyT]

Come on Reilly, I would hope for a lawyer well versed and well experienced in Constitutional Law??? This judge was a county commissioner now he's a Chief Judge deciding life and death?? Are you serious??

I would like that out of every judge as well, but that is not how the system works. The people of Florida believed that Greer was competent to handle probate matters and elected him to the bench (at least I am pretty sure he was elected). That was their decision.

On a side note, one doesn't have to be a constitutional lawyer to understand constitutional issues. Musicman isn't even a lawyer (I don't think), but he seems to understand constitutional issues very well. All it really takes is the effort to learn the stuff. Greer is a lawyer, went to law school and is perfectly capable of reading the Constitution and the cases that interpret it. I think it is clear on the basis that he has been upheld so many times on appeal that he isn't making mistakes on the Constitution, even if you disagree with his analysis on the facts.