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: Tom Clarke who wrote (105543)	3/23/2005 10:52:54 AM
From: JDN	Respond to of 793743

To me, his dissent is the only statement from any judge in this matter that makes any sense at all. So much has come to light about Michael since the Media has focused on this case, seems to me a whole new trial is what SHOULD be done. jdn

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (105543)	3/23/2005 11:18:09 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793743

The dissent fails to articulate the obvious question: Why didn't the attorneys for Schiavo ask for a trial which would have required the district court to order that Schiavo be fed and hydrated? If I represented Schiavo, I'd file again in the Tampa federal court, asking for a full trial on the merits as the newly-enacted statute allows. I'm dumbfounded by what seems to be the incompetence of the family's counsel. I haven't followed this case as closely as I could, but I have carefully read the statute and the pleading filed in the Florida federal court. Since the relief to which to which the family seems entitled, i.e., a full-blown trial not simply a review of the state courts' actions, has not been requested, I don't see any reason why the family is foreclosed from seeking it now. I am on the one hand in principle opposed to Congress's actions. On the other hand, I hate to see legal incompetence so baldly exhibited.