Mar 28 2005
Interesting Juxtaposition
Of course, there are differences between the Gonzalez and Schiavo cases. But clearly many of the people who approved of dramatic federal intervention to return Elian to Cuba took a completely different tack when it came to the argument over saving Terri Schiavo. Rep. Frank makes a compelling argument that Congress took an extraordinary step when it met in special session to create a procedure whereby the federal courts could decide whether Ms. Schiavo’s rights were being violated. He may have a point when he accuses Republicans of “trying to command judicial activism and dictate outcomes when they don’t like” rulings. But where were Mr. Frank and other liberals when the Clinton administration decided to sidestep a federal appeals court and order an armed raid against Elian Gonzalez? While Mr. Frank allowed that the use of assault rifles in the Elian raid was “excessive” and “frightening,” he also defended the Justice Department’s view that “of course [agents] had to use force.”
According to some reports, Gov. Jeb Bush considered seizing Mrs. Schiavo, à la Elian, and taking her to a hospital so she could be fed. But he did not do so. “I’ve consistently said that I can’t go beyond what my powers are, and I’m not going to do it,” the governor says. Janet Reno and the Clinton administration showed no such restraint when it came to Elian Gonzalez.
All the Law & Order libs were pretty silent when Elian was taken into custody despite a ruling by the Federal Court that it would not order Gonzalez be taken into custody. Now those same libs are all over the court system like white on rice. The court decided it, therefore it must be true.
Something to ponder as Terri moves into her tenth day of starvation at the hands of one Federal Court judge who wouldn’t do what he was supposed to do, and a Circuit Court Judge who is nothing more than a rubber-stamp for Michael Schiavo’s interpretation of what Terri did / didn’t / did /didn’t / did / didn’t actually want.
Choose life.
March 28th, 2005 at 9:30 am
Okay Rama… Why don’t you point out what specifically violated the constitution about Congress asking the Federal Court to re-hear the case and re-hear the evidence.
Be specific or you get deleted.
SPECIFIC.
March 28th, 2005 at 10:10 am
Rama,
Speaking of legal guardianship, the court has ruled Michael Schiavo the sole guardian of Terri, with total control over her life and her body. (Take note radical feminists) The bottom line, in my opinion, is that it’s a stretch to call this man her husband. He has been in a relationship with another woman for over a decade. He has two offspring with this woman! If Terri could communicate she would have, at the very least, divorced this man years ago. It would have been an open and shut case in any divorce court in the land.
For the courts to not take these factors in consideration is a joke and a disgrace!
Even if Terri Schiavo is a total vegetable, completely brains dead, her feeding tube should not be removed at the behest of this slimy man the courts and the media insist on calling her husband.
Ramah, even the mainstream media and the democrats haven’t claimed that the Congress violated the constitution! You seem to know something about the constitution that all the rest of us missed.
March 28th, 2005 at 11:17 am
Okay, Rhazes. I give up.
Who said that?
The closest thing I can find is my original quote:
I don’t see anything in there saying “happy as a pig in shit.”
March 28th, 2005 at 11:58 am
That’s not unconstitutional, unless you can cite the related paragraph of the constitution.
The federal government has the right to reassign the jurisdiction of any case to a federal court. That’s not unconstitutional.
Appealing a case is not unconstitutional.
I agree.
The bill passed the Senate almost unanimously (meaning most democrats voted for it there) and most reps in the House also voted for it (meaning a large number of dems voted for it there also).
You’ve mentioned zero that’s unconstitutional.
March 28th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
Rama,
You are correct in stating that Michael Schiavo didn’t break the law by shacking-up with another woman, but the court can still note a conflict of interest on his part. This conflict of interest argument is noted and used in court rulings frequently. It’s just something that they (the courts) can and should take into consideration as part of the case in whole. I, and many others believe that since a human life hangs in the balance, everything should be looked at seriously.
In regards to my saying that Terri would want a divorce if she could communicate, is no more speculation than Michael’s claim’s of Terri’s wishes. In fact, my “speculation” is just as reasonable in the absence of hard facts, than Michaels hearsay claims. There are thousands of criminal “circumstantial evidence” cases each year, in which the jury is asked to use common sense, and reasonable speculation in lieu of physical evidence. The Judicial system is far more complex and flexible than you seem to think.
For years liberals have been arguing against mandatory sentencing, claiming that you have to judge each case individually considering mitigating circumstances. I tend to agree with this argument.
March 28th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
In a lot of states, adultery (which is what Michael Schiavo has been committing for YEARS) may not be illegal, but it is grounds to loose alimony and even custody of your children.
And if anything that has happened in the last 10 days was truelly ‘unconsitutional’ I seriously doubt that the majority of the Senate and Congress, who I would hope are 100 times more versed in our Constitutional rights than you, would have passed the bill. Just because you want it to be unconsitutional doesn’t make it so. As Vinnie has asked, let’s see a direct quote of the right you claim is violated.
And the Schindlers have every right to appeal as many times as they want. That’s the beauty of our judicial system.
March 28th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
The Schindlers have numerous times requested M.Schiavo to be removed as guardian because he is an adulterer, because he stands to gain so much with Terri’s death. They have put that in their petitions.
And they should have new hearings with new evidence that can be introduced. A convicted criminal has that right - how many times does a criminal’s lawyer say there is new evidence that may show he was actually innocent and then request a new trial? Why should they have that right and not Terri’s parents. New evidence should be looked at closely, and not so readily dismissed as it has been countless times.
March 28th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
Oh, and are you a ‘lay person’? I would love to see your qualifications to disect this case. You, all knowledgable Rama of the Constitution.
March 28th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
You’re absolutely wrong. Congress can assign jurisdiction of a case to the Federal court system if they believe that the state courts erred in their decision, which is all that was done here.
You’re wrong, and hopelessly so.
And Rama, despite your claims of “several witnesses,” the witnesses that said she wanted to die:
1. Michael Schiavo (Who remembered it seven years after the fact for some reason).
2. His brother.
3. His brother’s wife.
People who say otherwise:
Every single other person who knew her.
Is the word of a man, his brother, and his wife enough to put a woman to death? I guess in some people’s minds it is.
Oh, speaking of going back and reading textbooks, that’s something you may want to consider genius.
Tell me how Michael (Mr. 7 year itch), his Brother, and his brother’s wife saying that Terri said something and not having her wishes in writing is not hearsay.
March 28th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
BTW: Just for shits and giggles: Rama is not even a US citizen.
March 28th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
That doesn’t surprise at all.
March 28th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
“And thank God this case doesn’t have to be decided by lay people like you.”
Rama,
Lay people like me, are the cornerstone of the judicial system. Laypeople make up the juries in this country. Cases ranging from criminal, with complex scientific issues, to anti-trust cases involving complex financial and accounting issues. These juries are not stacked with Accountants, Scientists, Attorneys, etc. They are entrusted to laypeople!
“You people” would love to keep the riffraff laypeople out of the judicial system, and turn it over to unaccountable elitist judges.
“Vinny - the constitution isn’t a paint by numbers document. Things are not alwasy spelled out in bright red letters - that is why we have a legal system that interperates the law.
And you are wong”
You dare correct my spelling, (Arian/Aryan) when you have three misspelled words (always, wong, and interoperates) in the above paragraph you sanctimonious asshole!
March 28th, 2005 at 4:40 pm
Rama, you’re either an idiot, illiterate, or an illiterate idiot.
I didn’t say their words hold no water. I said they shouldn’t have been enough to convict a woman to die with.
And as for the proxy, why use a proxy in Europe? Which one of my regular trolls are you trying to pretend not to be?
Steven/Rhazes?
Patrick/Penvy?
Xenmate?
March 28th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
More new english from Rama.
ADUKTERY
GAURDIAN
KIDNS
BOUNDRIES
OVERSTPPED
ARUGMENTS
PEOPPLE
ELSES
This from a shit-bag who dares call others lay people!
March 28th, 2005 at 5:37 pm
And in number 16 above ” Goegre Bush ” An American citizen? that can not spell the Presidents Name….. Rama, it is spelled G-E-O-R-G-E. If you want to nit-pick everyone else then you better check either your spelling or typing ability!
March 28th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
Pete, I love ya!
March 28th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Kricket,
You’re making me blush.
Thanks
March 28th, 2005 at 5:46 pm
The fact that he is living with another woman, fathered two children by her, has MOVED ON WITH HIS LIFE does not give him the right to condemn a woman to death. The fact that he actually has set up a new functioning family and is LIVING FULL TIME with them does not give him the right to lethally dispose of his inconvenient lawful wife. His interests are compromised.
By the way, your arguement of the judge knows the law better than us “laypeople” doesn’t hold much water. ‘Judge’ Greer has made rulings that completely contradict Florida state LAW.
Just because I’m not a lawyer or a judge doesn’t mean that this ‘layperson’ is completely ignorant. Yes, I have strong emotions on this case. And I have strong emotions on a lot of cases. And I have never sat there and cried foul on the government for butting in to my life.
March 28th, 2005 at 6:09 pm
Amen Kricket!
To quote Bob Dylan:
“You don’t need a weather man to know which way the wind blows”
March 28th, 2005 at 6:54 pm
Kathy-
If you are truly going to knit-pick rama’s post the way you allege he does, then you need to put some thought and effort into the process. It’s obvious he misspelled a few words and breeched the laws of punctuation and grammar as defined by the English language. Get over it. My posts are often riddled with errors and so are yours.
I don’t want you to reply with an analysis of your last post and its actual message. I understood it. Instead, you should try mounting a bold and witty comeback against your next attacker. This should make your posts less painful to read.
March 28th, 2005 at 7:41 pm
Patrick, I haven’t ever knocked on anyone for typos or for spelling errors, but when someone is so pompus, thinks they know every law in the book (which I am so sure none of us do) then it is time to show them the errors in their ways. I don’t claim to never make mistakes, Lord knows I have done my share as I am sure a lot of us have.
March 28th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
Patrick,
If you have been following the comments, it was Rama who started this whole spelling issue. He did it in a pompous and arrogant manner meant to demean me because he disagrees with my views.
I misspelled Aryan. (Arian)
This was his snide response:
Pete - if you are going to make parallels, at least spell Aryan correctly
This was my response back:
Rama,
I apologize for the spelling error, and stand corrected.
In later comments he sanctimoniously lectures people, while misspelling dozens of simple words. Your defense of this moron, along with your attack on Kathy is misguided and puzzling.
March 28th, 2005 at 9:36 pm
Pete, Thanks so very much. I think he has a hard on for me for some reason.
He seemed to overlook anything anyone else said but jumped my case but heck I just take it with a grain of salt and consider the source. I wonder why the defensive attitude of Rama? Things that make you go hmmmmmmm!
March 28th, 2005 at 9:44 pm
Petey-
I didn’t realize I was defending Rama. I was simply trying to shift a tired debate about form and cosmetics into a quick lesson on beratement. This was a mini-tutorial aimed at guiding Kathy whose attempts at providing this forum with a cutting or witty remark appear dull and innefective.
Read ALL of the post and you might discover my intent. When you read this post, I’d appreciate a little digestion and thought before a response. It’s a courtesy everyone should allow each other.
March 28th, 2005 at 9:46 pm
Oh, and Kathy-
I’ve seen the pictures on your site. Don’t flatter yourself.
March 28th, 2005 at 9:54 pm
Gee, didn’t you make a statement like that before, Patrick? Those pictures are there for a special reason if you read that site too. I am not about to get into a person attack here on Vinny’s site as that is totally off the subject that he is covering since the day they took the feeding tube from Terri.
March 28th, 2005 at 9:57 pm
Patty,
Thanks for the advice. I think I’ll digest your post overnight, and hope it won’t require Maalox in the morning.
Good night……………..
March 28th, 2005 at 10:38 pm
I prefer to not even digest Pat’s post as most of the time he spews crap.
Kathy, the only reason they are picking on you is because they have no concrete substantial arguements to make. they can only feel better about themselves by trying to bring you down.
March 28th, 2005 at 10:48 pm
Kricket, You know I sure can see that. I think it is funny but then again sad, that they are so childish. In doing the things they do it really shows. Like I said to them before, This should be the place to discuss Terri and pro and con of what is going on all the way around. From the feeing tube to the government getting involved. Everyone sees things differently and has their own feelings on what is going on and how it is being taken care of. Heck, that is why all the nasty crap going on all over the country. It looks now that the most we can even hope for is for Terri to be able to rest in peace and that her so call hubby will do the right thing in the end. Thanks Kricket!!! and Pete!!!
March 28th, 2005 at 11:43 pm
Elian and Terri have one thing in common: in both cases, custody was the factor used to determine which side won. And by “win” I don’t mean “got exactly what they wanted” but “prevailed in the courts”. The Elian case was a no-brainer from a legal standpoint: he was picked up at sea, so he goes back to Cuba. (If you want to avoid future Elian cases, you might want to tell Congress to throw away that law.)
As to who says they heard Terri’s wishes regarding her life, isn’t it possible that both the husband and the family are telling the truth? That the family didn’t hear that something was her wish isn’t exactly proof that she wished otherwise. And although seven years is a bit long, I can imagine how he didn’t want to rush things when there was still some reason for hope. The days and weeks after Terri was brain-damaged probably weren’t the ideal time for him to say to the family, “You know, Terri had some clear ideas regarding just such an event as this.” (Yeah, I’ve seen the Larry King transcripts, so you don’t have to tell me.)