Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (105403)	3/22/2005 3:20:12 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793791

Count One – she did not have a fair trial in the state proceedings. Count Two – she did not have due process during the state proceedings. Count Three – she did not have equal protection of law during the state proceedings. Count Four – her religious rights are being violated by the hospital, the husband, and the judge. Count Five – her First Amendment rights are being violated by the hospital, the husband, and the judge Counts One, Two and Three are non-starters for reasons we have already discussed. Counts Four and Five are non-starters because a) the hospital and husband aren't state actors, thus not covered by the First Amendment and b) the federal judge ruled that merely because the state judge adjudicated the case is not sufficient to constitute action under color of state law (this is an area of law I haven't researched, but analogizing to other cases I've worked on, I think he's probably right, that ruling in favor of the husband is not, ipso facto, a violation of her First Amendment rights and religious rights.)