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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (31574)	4/2/2005 10:16:45 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Why did he wait 5 years to carry out her so called wishes? And do you think she really expressed those wishes? Do 25 years olds do that?

To: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (31574)	4/2/2005 3:57:14 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"Several court proceedings were conducted and all held that it would not have been Terri Schiavo's intent to be kept "alive" in the condition she had been in for 15 years. " Actually that's factually incorrect. There has only been one finding of fact that determined Terri's alleged wishes. And those results are why there has been so much acrimony because of a plethora of conflicting information exists. There is so much contention because the standard necessary to remove the feeding tube was "clear & convincing evidence" - the highest standard in a non-criminal case. And yes, there is enough evidence to raise serious concerns that the "clear & convincing" threshold was not met. In any event, once the finding of fact was done, all future court cases have been a review of the "process" (IE, did the judge follow proper procedures overall). However, there has never been any additional reviews of the finding of fact (Terri's alleged wishes). Courts rarely ever review a previous finding of fact - it's almost like that is etched in stone regardless of whether there were serious problems or not. And for those who believe that certain conservatives in Congress overstepped their bounds, they too may be quite mistaken. Congress passed a law (as Congress is empowered under the Constitution) to have the courts perform a de novo review of the case (de novo being a fresh review from the start - including the findings of fact). President Bush signed the law into effect as is his duty under the Constitution (either veto or sign laws into effect). The courts have ignored this law in violation of the Constitution. Since passage of this law by Congress, the courts have continued to rule based on the previous finding of fact. No de novo review has taken place & no ruling has been made by any court that this law is unconstitutional. I don't care which side of this issue anyone is on. We all should be concerned about the judicial activism at least as much as we perceive that right wing extremists somehow passed a bad law. How many folks are upset about government intrusion into our lives? Well, the courts decided Terri Schiavo's fate. They are a major branch of government too. And the other branches of Gov't saw real problems & took steps to protect a citizen from a potential miscarriage of justice (due process). Why are we only concerned about two of the three branches of gov't? And we should all be concerned about all of the facts in the Terri Schiavo case, not just those that support their POV.