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: LindyBill who wrote (105698)	3/24/2005 5:50:10 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 793697

Deleted post

To: LindyBill who wrote (105698)	3/24/2005 5:51:10 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793697

Fascinating Bill, I'm certainly no lawyer myself, and maybe I am confusing this paragraph from the "statute" she is talking about, but as I read this statement from Congress, the language seems pretty clear. Here is how I break it down. 1. The courts must look at the case and possible violation of rights to Theresa Marie Schiavo not withstanding any prior decisions. 2. Do so without delay. T]he District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted. The other items she talks about in that post seem like lawyer-talk designed to confuse the issue. But then, I guess I fall under this mindset whereby she writes "Of course, there are different views on the role of text and legislative intent in statutory interpretation. Some people think that courts should follow the text and the text alone." If you are not following the text of the statute voted on and provided by the legislature specific to this circumstance, then you're opening a can of worms in regard to different meanings of many different documents and cases which do not necessarily apply. Why not stick with the text of the statute the legislature wrote directly pertaining to this case? It requires very little interpretation. The "intent" is clearly made in the words voted and agreed upon by legislative act.

To: LindyBill who wrote (105698)	3/24/2005 11:10:36 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793697

Hugh should say whether he thinks that the plaintiffs in the Schiavo case have a winning case on the merits, and if so, on what specific constitutional or statutory grounds. This really is the question. Terri's Law gives her parents the right to file a case in federal court based on violations of federal law and/or Constitutional rights, but not a whole new trial on state law issues. There doesn't appear to be a well developed body of law on these issues. Certainly there is no applicable federal statutes directly on point, and the SCOTUS appears to defer to the state courts. I was just reading the Cruzan case -- a very similar fact pattern which came down differently because Missouri law was different and the trial court was not persuaded that Ms. Cruzan would have wanted to die. The SCOTUS took that case but punted it, affirming the state courts.