Madame Hillary is polling on the issue to see what her position is. Al Gore wants to put tapes of the game in " a lock-box ". Rev. Al sees it as a racist, corporate conspiracy which can only be righted by a donation. Ted Kennedy wants to tax anyone making over $ 100 K for the cost of new referees.

Al Franken wants to see the refs naked.

Once again, the referee lobby has failed to secure any votes in its support.

Delightful read.

Oh, Jack. That's beautiful. Thank you.

Freakin' priceless! Nicely done, neighbor.

"brother gary" needs some professional help I think.

Interesting description of Blumenauer's drink. A mocha is in fact a special kind of latte, although using the term "mocha latte" is actually redundant since latte is part of the definition of mocha.

And, really, does Blumenauer look like a mocha kind of guy? Maybe a soy mocha, buy I see him more as a soy chai teal latte guy, or else just a cup of tea. Herbal, of course...

Brilliant.

I'm a good Republican. (Please spare us all the contradiction in terms jokes.)

I regularly agree with Lars.

Until this issue.

You've captured the reason perfectly. Nice.

See, the problem with satire is that, if it's effective, it scares the living crap out of interested parties for at least a second or two.

Love the post, though.

Although it takes an analogy to criminal law, it is not a wholly bad argument, really, that Shaivo's right to effective counsel, a federal right in death penalty case, might rightly be subject to review in a federal court where her life is at stake. IMHO, name-calling on "both sides" and the need of most to be on the side that history will declare the winner obscures the fact that there are some real issues about the rights of the disabled this case raises. There is a good article in today's USA Today by Jonah Goldberg of the National Review, "Hypocrisy without principles is the worst kind of all" about how partisan charges of hypocricy have sidetracked discussion of the Shaivo case on its merits. I am as chagrined by the rise of the right wing talk show as the next thinkng person, but I have come to see it is something intolerant Democrats have permitted, if not caused.

Perhaps everyone should read the opinions of the US District Court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals before they comment on what the judges have done. If you read those opinions and have some understanding of constitutional law, you will see how frivolous the parents' lawsuit is. Or you could mindlessly blather.

Spencer, No question what happened was unorthodox, but we get some pretty fast and loose definitions of "frivolous" bandied about these days. And by lawyers. Usually Republicans, though, who see all trial court lawyers as nasties out for the buck. But intstead of parsing issues and having civil discussions (yes, I believe in the bounds of civility, although, as with the urban growth boundary I think there is more to talk about), we get accusations of "mindless blather" The disability rights issues are just emerging, but cannot be characterized as such. Anyone interested in more than name-calling and "Us v. Them" ought to check out Wesley J. Smith's blog.

Also, this is being characterized as a "Right to Die" case. I can't go that far on these facts. The trial court judge did and since he was closest to the evidence, appellate courts would hesitate to overturn. But where life is at stake, I think that makes the situation extrordinary. That is where Jack's satire leads me; maybe that is the point. I have always been a bit of of a slow learner. But not mindless.

I agree with you, Spencer. I read the opinions and found them to be well reasoned. I don’t understand why Bush was disappointed by the rulings. If anything, he should be proud of these judges because they demonstrated a great deal of judicial restraint. It’s a quality he desperately seeks in a judge, isn’t it?

Here's a very thought-provoking article from Slate, written by a lawyer with a disability.

http://www.slate.com/id/2115208/

Thank you, Al for the URL to that article. No body knows indeed. And we need to get off pretending. My former brother in law is a prominent head and neck surgeon in Portland who admits that medical science is in the "Dark Ages". The appellate courts have been deferring to Judge Greer and in the words of the song "They blinded him with science .....bom. bom bom...... Judicial restraint or fear and timidity?

Accusing a judge of being “blinded with science” doesn’t sound like the beginning of a civil discussion to me. But I digress…

Yes, nobody really knows what Ms. Schiavo’s wishes were, and science is not without its share of ambiguity. But when faced with a tough petition like this, the trial judge’s job was to make a clear-cut decision based on what he considered to be the most reliable evidence. I don’t believe that Judge Greer got to where he is today by being timid, nor do I buy the accusation that that he was on a mission to “get” Ms. Schiavo. In fact, according to this article (http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/22/Northpinellas/Local_Republicans_bac.shtml), Judge Greer is “an evangelical Christian man” and is highly regarded by local Republicans.

To quote a Republican lawmaker in Florida: “Those folks that are saying anything bad about Judge Greer, they don't know him, and apparently they don't understand the law and the separation of powers...”

Now it appears that even Tribe is saying the issue of whether Shaivo wanted to live or die never was squarely before the court. Rather, it was the Constitutional integrity of the FLorida guardianship statues the court ruled on. Nonetheless, the 11th Circuit commented on facts that weren't before it. The parents' lawyers are being blamed for not getting the issue in the right light; one would have to see the record to form a legitmate opinion. As obnoxious-and scary-as the Fox Network can be, once in a while Bill O'Reilly acts like a real investigative journalist,and that is what the public wants. He got the record and the evidence that TS wanted to die: her husband's testimony and that of two of his relatives. Anyone who knows of someone who has been through a hostile divorce can imagine: asking the relatives to help him get rid of a-in this case-literal-ball and chain. As for the judiciary: An impartial judiciary isn't a given; the bar and community have to work at having one. Legal scholars say so. Judges aren't gods. I have seen some -to which I referred as real estate developers in black dresses help lawyers . steal. In Good ol Oregon, this kind of thing has happened since before Statehood and is an ongoing problem. Read E Kimbark McColl and open your eyes.

Now it appears that even Tribe is saying the issue of whether Shaivo wanted to live or die never was squarely before the court. Rather, it was the Constitutional integrity of the FLorida guardianship statues the court ruled on. Nonetheless, the 11th Circuit commented on facts that weren't before it. The parents' lawyers are being blamed for not getting the issue in the right light; one would have to see the record to form a legitmate opinion. As obnoxious-and scary-as the Fox Network can be, once in a while Bill O'Reilly acts like a real investigative journalist,and that is what the public wants. He got the record and the evidence that TS wanted to die: her husband's testimony and that of two of his relatives. Anyone who knows of someone who has been through a hostile divorce can imagine: asking the relatives to help him get rid of a-in this case-literal-ball and chain. As for the judiciary: An impartial judiciary isn't a given; the bar and community have to work at having one. Legal scholars say so. Judges aren't gods. I have seen some -to which I referred as real estate developers in black dresses help lawyers . steal. In Good ol Oregon, this kind of thing has happened since before Statehood and is an ongoing problem. Read E Kimbark McColl and open your eyes.

Cynthia,
Michael Schiavo didn't need his relatives' help to "get rid of the baal and chain." Terri Schiavo's parents *offered to take her* AND *let him keep any settlement money*. I think your DEVIOUS gene is being overexpressed. Michael Schiavo clearly COULD have got "rid" of her if he wanted to; he chose to carry out her wishes instead. Bill O'Reilly? Surely you can do better than that.

Jud, these are fact questions that were for Judge Greer and he didn't do a very good job of sifting them. What Terri would have wanted is an open fact question, too. We could go on and on. But let me respond to your assertion by saying that Micael Shaivo would have looked like a complete ass if he had taken Terri's parents up on their offer. As for what it is that is really happening here-and the systemic problems in the courts, I refer you to Wesley J Smith's blog. Also the following post from a board on Judge Greer's initial fact finding. Try to get beyond the false left v. right dichotomy and I think your mind will become more nimble. So will Yi Hu's (If that is his real name)> Most Chinese people I know are pretty nuanced thinkers.
I have signed all petitions and everyone who is appalled should do so . It is an amazing injustice. However the edicts of Judge Greer are"all but carved in stone," and there has never been a realistic hope of any relief at the judicial level:

Judge Greer , in multiply revisiting his own findings of fact, by not recognizing that Terri's attorney's have shown that they have new evidence, of Terri's condition, of 1) improper or 2) inadequate diagnoses, or of 3) her expressed intent to stay alive, has continually reaffirmed his own original opinion. Judge Greer has demonstrated over and over again, that trial judges are not eager to overturn themselves, either.

His decisions' adamancy and language seems to be so intently micro-focused - when you read the docs, that it seems there are perhaps much bigger issues here and Greer is attempting to "plug the leak" before things get worse. He works hard to avoid the most pressing human aspect of the case; the language is Spockian logic, written as if it is coming out of a spell-checking machine. Oh, all except the little Hallmark "expression of concern" at the end of each decision.

So, what we have left, is a situation where the original findings of fact, as determined by Judge Greer - that 1) Michael Schiavo is a proper guardian, that 2) he has Terri Schiavo's best interests at heart, that 3) Terri Schiavo is in a "PVS," and that 4) she wants to be starved and dehydrated to death - are all but carved in stone.

The standard of review, the review of the judicial process of the lower court is intended to preserve the integrity of the trial process, acknowledging that appellate courts do not get to hear testimony, see witnesses, evaluate their demeanor and their credibility. All sensible.

But this standard leaves no protection for someone like Terri Schiavo, who was 1)unrepresented by independent counsel at trial, and 2) whose "guardian" is the very person she needed to be protected against.

Rating: 0% of 1 people liked this post. Thank you for your rating.


‹‹prev subject ‹prev message next message› next subject››


Add Reply | Mark Message Unread | Add to My Boards
Ignore Author

Messages Rating Author Date



JUDGE GREER Sc7233 3/27/05 5:24 PM
Re: JUDGE GREER Jennsmom331 3/27/05 5:31 PM
Re: JUDGE GREER Sc7233 3/27/05 5:36 PM
Re: JUDGE GREER XavierSkyrider 3/27/05 5:31 PM
Re: JUDGE GREER Mt torry feist 3/27/05 5:34 PM
Re: JUDGE GREER Sc7233 3/27/05 5:34 PM
Re: JUDGE GREER JACALSO 3/27/05 5:42 PM
Re: JUDGE GREER Barikudakid 3/27/05 5:39 PM
(times shown in EST)
list all | list unread | view tree


Mark Thread Read | Mark Thread Unread


Community Standards | Notify AOL