This an absurd argument.

The court has repeatedly found that Iyer's statements have no basis in fact. The court has repeatedly found that Mrs. Shiavo expressed her will that she not remain in such a state - not just to her husband but to her friends as well. The court ordered twice that a full evaluation of Mr. Shiavo's care of his wife be performed, and both auditors found that his care was above reproach.

You have the right to express your opinion, even your concern that this sets a dangerous precedent. Before you do so, however, I suggest you read the court documents before you begin to foam at the mouth.

The rule of law doesn't bend to suit your moral whims.
-3L

This article is the epitomy of the sad confusion of the right.

Mark,

Yes, we see you value life.

But don't look into Bush's law in texas which realizes your fears.

But don't look into Tom Delay's own father.

But don't look at the tremendous budget cuts and lack of funding for education.

But don't look at Bush on vacation again.

But don't look at the US selling jets to Pakistan.

But don't look for Bin Laden.

But don't look for Sun Hudson.

But don't look at Tom Delay's ethics.

But don't look at the Bankruptcy Bill.

But don't look for WMDs.

But don't look at the deficit.

That plank of wood in your eyes must sting pretty bad.

P.S. Don't look for 8.9 BILLION dollars in Iraqi oil funds.

Argh. How fitting that Mark argues that this is against the wishes of her "family", while neglecting to mention the sanctity of marriage he would readily bring up in a different column.

Why don't you mention the fact that the judge was kicked out of his church for enforcing the law? I thought Mark would be against "activist" judges legislating morality from the bench, and therefore praise this one.

It seems to me you bring up Iyer's accusations because Terri's mother and father don't have a legal leg to stand on.

This is a sad situation and I don't know how you can tell if either side is unsincere. That being said, stop adding fuel to the fire.

"support decreases among those with greater religious devotion"

Why not report that even in that group, the majority was in favor of removing her feeding tube. 46% in favor, 44% opposed.

Nice attempt at misleading the readers, but it is shitty, dishonest journalism. Here is the excerpt for everyone who want the real facts on that poll, not propaganda.

"But two core Republican groups -- conservatives and evangelical Protestants -- are more divided: Fifty-four percent of conservatives support removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, compared with seven in 10 moderates and liberals. And evangelical Protestants divide about evenly -- 46 percent are in favor of removing the tube, 44 percent opposed. Among non-evangelical Protestants, 77 percent are in favor -- a huge division between evangelical and mainline Protestants."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=599622&page=1

Rule of law? Court findings?

The law in this case is that Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was supposed to be left in. That was passed by the Florida legislature and signed into law by Gov. Bush. That is the law in this case, not rulings by activist judges. The other branches of government have the right and responsibility to check the judiciary.

Greer should have removed himself from the case after he made that statement in 2001. He was in no position to objectively evaluate Iyer's deposition two years later after he made such remarks. His mind was closed and nothing would sway him.

Finally, I want one of you to explain why you want this woman to die so badly instead of allowing her family to care for her. This makes no sense.

Mark, this column is at a lower level than your usual noxious bullshit.

You would know, if you had looked, that Mr. Schiavo spent years fighting to give his wife the best possible care.

You would know, if you looked, that multiple judges, Republican and Democrat, have decided that Mr. Schaivo has demonstrated he is carrying out his wife's wishes, by the standard set up by a largely conservative Republican Supreme Court, that he is carrying out her wishes.

You would know, if you looked, that no one except conservative blowhards has found Iyer to be credible. But hey, you certainly know better than the folks who spent hours and hours in multiple trials ascertaining her credibility.

I'm sorry about your brother, but whatever his situation, I doubt it's the same as Mrs. Schaivo's, since the majority of her brain has degraded into fluid. No doctor with any credible expertise that has also made an actual diagnosis (I'm looking at either "Dr" Bill Frist or the "Nobel-prize winning laureate" who was nominated by a Republican congressmen, which is like being nominated by you, Mark) has found any chance for improvement here.

The lack of respect for either the courts or scientific expertise is something that both secularists and right-thinking religious folks should be worried about, as Republicans have finally shed any doubt that they give a shit about either.

Hey 3L-

that is unless you want to make abortion or privacy or gay marriage a constitutional right, correct?

Don't pretend like your left wing morals haven't overturned the rule of law many times in the past. You need to get out of law school and start thinking outside of your liberal dream world.

There simply HAVE to be more important issues going on around the world than this crap. This is one woman who is essentially dead anyway... her situation doesn't even have any potential to change laws or create reinterpretations. Hell yeah I'm a secularist, can I call you a supernaturalist?

Right commentators. We all knew that Baumgardner was going to come down on the wrong side of this argument from Day 1, but wow, he just hits out of the park today! Ignorance, fear, stupidity, disregard for the rule of law.

Isn't hilarious how "activist" judges are now those that follow the law? No one has yet mentioned that the law passed by Congress is quite probably unconstitutional and therefore, by not reinserting the feeding tube, Judge Greer has actually enforced, rather than reinterpreted the law.

Baumgardner, would you feel better giving the legal rights and scrutiny to every single person's right to die as Schiavo has had? Years of legal wrangling, uncertainty and publicity?

Better yet, would you support this sort of legal examination of death row prisoners? My lord, the hypocrisy on the right has got to choke you in your sleep!

The commentator about the plank in the eye...right on! Baumgardner can't see beyond the end of his own dogma.

"No one has yet mentioned that the law passed by Congress is quite probably unconstitutional"

Maybe a liberal activist judge would say it is unconstitutional by creating new constitutional provisions.

for example there is no right to privacy, but it is somehow emanating from pneumbras in the framework. Don't laugh, that was the actual justification used by a liberal activist judge to invent a right to privacy.

The law passed by Congress would be unconstitutional because it is too narrow. By failing to provide wider coverage (which is exactly what they did NOT want to do, just save one woman) they have probably violated the 14th Amendment. Equal Protection claims could be raised by other families in the same situation and the law would be struck down.

Besides, what's interesting is that Sen. Frist was out maneuvered on the floor of the Senate. To all those people whining about how Judge Greer didn't follow the law...well, you obviously don't know how the law works.

On the floor of the Senate, Sen. Frist was out debated and admitted, right on the floor, that the bill did NOT require the reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube. It was only required if the judge felt that the parties advoacting it (her family) had a liklihood of succeeding on the merits.

So, it was left to the judge to figure out of the Schiavo family was more right than wrong that the judge should overturn Florida law, disregard the previous trials (which is what de novo review does), etc., etc. What blinded the right, the fundamentalists and fooled the politicians, was that they thought that a judge taking the case would never DARE go against the sentiments and passions of the religious extremists in this country and actually uphold the law as it stands.

Well, the judge did, and he did not ignore the law, he followed it. He decided that the family was unlikely to prevail (and trust me, the Supreme Court not taking this case means that they would not have prevailed) and he ruled that Michael Schiavo gets to decide the fate of his wife's future.

This was a huge win for the rule of the law, and a bitterly won lesson that those in this country with more passion than sense can still be held in check by the very government our forefathers were so smart to believe would keep these zealots in line.

-=Rob Deters=-

http://durrrrr.blogspot.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/terrischiavo/

Um, Terri's husband has cared for her for 15 years. He's just trying to honor her wishes to die with dignity.

And he didn't just go out and find some "friendly" court. At least a dozen courts have all ruled totally against her parent's trying to steal that dignity away from her because they just can't let go. And let's point out that not a single doctor has gone in there and said she still has a chance.

Is it right that her husband should be sentenced to a lifetime of care for a person who is by all reasonable definitions, dead?

"Finally, I want one of you to explain why you want this woman to die so badly instead of allowing her family to care for her. This makes no sense."

Why? Because she's earned it. Or do you people not believe in heaven anymore? 60% or more of her brain doesn't even exist anymore and nervous tissue like that can never regrow. So she has no biological way of recovering. So we think that she should have the chance to die and go to heaven instead of remaining in this hell on earth.

The parents are in denial and it is causing them to act very selfishly. They have admitted that even if Terri had written that she would want the feeding tube removed, they would try to nullify that somehow. You can feel sorry for the parents, but ultimately you must realize that they are in denial and are not qualified to make the decisions.

OK fine she's "earned it". So why didn't Michael just go in and give her a lethal injection or shoot her instead of starving her? Wouldn't that have put her out of her "hell on earth" faster?

Because he wanted to make sure he did everything he could do to save her life so that she could fully recover. If you looked, you would know that he hardly left her side for 3 years while he did everything under the sun to help her recover. Once there was no hope of recovery, he attempted to carry out his wife's wishes, was thwarted, and here we sit.

So how exactly did the media manipulate this one? If you watched the news you would assume that public opinion, like most issues in our country, was split 50/50. If anything they seemed to be very compassionate towards the parents and their supporters. But the fact of the matter is, even among conservatives, that the majority of this country did not support our government stepping into personal lives. The republican party used to have great ideals, like small government and stuff like that. Now they are concerned with what nasty things gay men do and grandstanding on the body of a nearly dead woman.Although I don't want to come down too hard on the repubs on this one, because except for the radicals most of them supportered Teri's wishes. It's only the baumgardners of the world that are perpatrating the fear mongering this time.

"can still be held in check by the very government our forefathers were so smart to believe would keep these zealots in line."

Is that why they gave the congress power to determine the court's jursidiction? Is that why the forefathers also guaranteed a right to bear arms? Is that why congress was given all law making authority in Article I?

Stop picking and chosing when you feel like consulting the constitution Rob. Everyone sees through it.

Technically we are given the right to have a well armed militia, nothing says we as individuals are allowed to have arms.

If true happiness lies in the next life, not the current one, then why is it wrong that Shiavo gets to go somewhere she will be happier?

Greer is a conservative, Republican, Baptist judge. There. Does that change your opinion of him?

Michael Schiavo was offered $10 million to divorce Terri and walk away from the whole situation. He turned it down. Any money he and Terri received from the malpractice settlement is gone to hospice care and lawyers. Schiavo also spent several years caring for his wife, and trained himself as a nurse so he could do so.

Here's something funny: several years ago, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's father was in a similar situation to Terri Schiavo. DeLay and his family elected to turn off life support. Huh. The hypocrisy is stomach-turning, don't you think?

Is ANYONE, I mean ONE SINGLE PERSON surprised that Congress was bitch-slapped by the federal and state courts after their maneuver? The law they passed was unconstitutional and they and everyone else knew it.

It's funny, you haven't heard much from President "I Signed More Death Warrants Than Any Other Governor, Ever" Bush or DeLay since that weekend. Funnily enough, opinion polls found that Americans thought Congress had stepped over the line.

Protect yourself and don't be put in this situation!

(This comes from: the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups)

COULD the SCHIAVO CASE HAPPEN IN WISCONSIN?
Many people have asked if the battle over Terri Schiavo could happen to them in
Wisconsin. The answer is yes - it could happen to you in Wisconsin. Here's why.
If you don't complete a Power of Attorney for Health Care (POA-HC), it could happen
to you in Wisconsin. If you don't complete a POA-HC, you run a greater risk than people
who have completed a POA-HC of having a dispute develop about who should be the
surrogate decision-maker. Terri Schiavo did not complete a POA-HC, designating whom
she chose as her agent. (In her defense, the law at the onset of her disability might not
have provided for the creation of such a document; Wisconsin's Power of Attorney law did
not go into effect until April 28, 1990, for instance.) Her family are suspicious about her
husband and whether he is acting in a manner that's consistent with her wishes, or his own.
His credibility might have been enhanced if she had actually selected him as her decisionmaker.
On the other hand, she might have indicated her disapproval of her husband as her
decision-maker by choosing one of her parents. How different this case would be if she had
done that. Of course, that point underscores the importance of: 1) choosing your own
health care decision-maker via a POA-HC, instead of having someone else imposed on
you in a guardianship proceeding, and 2) choosing the right person -- the one who
understands what you would want and is able to advocate effectively on behalf of your
wishes.
If you don't articulate your wishes and if you don't talk to enough of the right people, it
could happen to you. Apparently Schiavo did not state her wishes clearly enough or to
enough people. POAs-HC are based on an assumption that the principal has talked to the
agent about the principal's wishes and therefore the agent knows what the principal would
have wanted. In fact, the state POA-HC form includes a statement to that effect. The
problem with only speaking to your agent about your wishes is that others may not believe
your agent's representation about your conversation. Or you may have had a contradictory
conversation with another person. If you include a number of people in the discussion, a
dispute is less likely to occur.
Even if you don't complete a POA-HC, it's still important to discuss your wishes.
Without a POA-HCA, a guardian will have to be appointed by the court to make decisions
for you if you are unable to make your own decisions. A guardian is permitted to rely on the
wishes of a ward about the withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining medical treatment if
the ward made a clear statement of his or her wishes prior to incompetency.
Everyone -- no matter how old or young (Schiavo, Nancy Cruzan and Karen Quinlan
were in their 20's and 30's) -- should consider what their wishes might be in a variety of
medical situations, and should communicate these thoughts to the family members and
friends who might be involved in responding to a medical crisis.
Of course, none of this prevents a dispute from arising. Even with a POA-HC, family
members can petition for guardianship or can file a petition to review the actions of a health
care agent. However, having a POA-HC and having a discussion of one's wishes with
enough of the right people can go a long way to stop such a dispute from erupting.
Reduce your chances of becoming a news item like Terri Schiavo -- face the issue of
what your wishes would be in a medical crisis, talk to family and friends about your wishes,
and complete a Power of Attorney for Health Care.

"So why didn't Michael just go in and give her a lethal injection or shoot her instead of starving her? Wouldn't that have put her out of her "hell on earth" faster?"

You know, it's been widely reported (by doctors who have actually examined her and neurologists who do know a thing or two about the brain) that the part of her brain that no longer functions is also the part that controls whether or not you feel pain. So while it may seem like an inhumane way to have her die, its not like you or I stopping eating and drinking. She isn't feeling it.

And even if she were biologically able to feel pain, she wouldn't because she is constantly pumped full of morphine.

It's amazing that people in favor of feeding this woman whom they have never met can be so hypocritical and throw loaded terms. I keep hearing how she is starving, and being murdered. She's not in there people!! There's nobody home, no chance for recovery. She may have been able to die with dignity at some point, but certainly not now, after becoming a national news story. Why is it that so-called advocates of life are so determined to let someone live, yet take absolutely no other responsibility for that person beyond that? If you think the government should step in on this issue, you have to ask yourself other questions, like, are they prepared to pay for this? What about the countless other people in her condition? Are they prepared to fund and support their hospital bills, or the impossibly vast amount of research and new technology that would be required to "fix" her brain, thereby making her pitiful life actually worth living? Right now, it's impossible that she would recover. So are the members of the government and population who supposedly feel so strongly about this willing to aid her family financially and emotionally as they continue to hold on to someone who is already gone? Of course, typical of people who think they know what's best for other people's families, these people have no answers and are not willing to recognize and deal with the heavy burden that inherently comes along with making other people's choices.

Oh yes, I know, the "liberal activist judge" (stereotype = illogical argument, by the way) is making her choice for her, right? Yes, the moral of this story is definitely that you should have this all figured out and in writing BEFORE something happens. And it is usually suggested that families NOT take up the burden of carrying out a person's wishes in this case, because often times they become over-emotional, can't let go, and end up doing something selfish like prolonging the life of someone who can never actually live it. But that is as far as this story should go. The fact that laws are being passed, and that the Bush's are trying to use this to override the system of checks and balances, and that now every family in the U.S. thinks they know enough about this case to force complete strangers to make a decision is no less than psychotic.

As for: "that is unless you want to make abortion or privacy or gay marriage a constitutional right, correct"

I shouldn't be surprised. In every big issue like this, gay people and their rights are always used as scapegoats and exploited in political attacks (as if there are no gay Republicans or gay conservatives or gay pro-lifers that agree with you - wake up people, this world isn't so black and white!). We're not talking about civil rights right now, so stick to the subject. We can talk about LGBT rights and the radical right's anti-gay agenda when that subject is reported on.

Renewing the Patriot Act, social security reform, No Child Left Behind, the war in Iraq and Schavio's case all go to show why American politics is constantly in a flavor of the day flux. Both sides are morons whose hubris and arrogance always lead to failure, then the other jokers take over, mess up and here comes the original losers. Time for a third party so we don't have to put up with all this trivial crap.

technically we were given a statement that says "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" The well regulated militia comes before this and may or may not modify the individual right to bear arms.

A feeding tube IS life support (based on the legal definition, not your personal hunch, Mark). Is research really just that hard for you?

QUOTE: "Like him or not, one has to admit that Rush Limbaugh is correct when he says, 'Words mean things.'"

That's it, folks, contest's over. DUMBEST. QUOTE. EVER.

aw shucks, if only chimpyhitlercowboy had allowed stem cells...we could save terri...we would champion her being saved. even if it took 1000 embryos...we can save her! hope is on the way! "silky pony" edwards said so.
guys, how can you be passionate about expediting her death? you sound nuts. i can see the crazy religious people being "passionate," about the topic, but either you should not care, or you should err on the side of preserving life...she hasn't received nutrition in 12 days...she's still fighting to live. pretty good for a vegetable.

gosh, if only she was a fetus, i could totally accept the court's decree.
howard dean.

just kidding.

has anyone seen how red mark's ear is in the photo?

Most of the comments here are voiced under the conception that some people have a right to judge another as "not-enough-of-a-person". A "civil war" has and will be fought again to bring everyone back to the right of being equal and "whole".

Memo

Ladies and gentlemen, a memo has been circulated -- unsigned, not on official letterhead, and rife with errors. Since those standards are used by the mainstream press concerning memos supposedly circulated by Republicans, I would be at a competitive disadvantage if I didn't share this memo with you. It's from the Judiciary to the American people.

"A rising number of you are questioning the role of the judiciary in your lives, so we'd like to clarify several principles. Some of you, incorrectly, view the judiciary as a 'co-equal' branch of government. As this misunderstanding is at the heart of your uncharitable view of us, let's get something straight. The legislative and executive branches are responsible for suggesting laws for our approval. We [the judiciary] are the final word: not them, not you. You may think this is a representative republic -- but you people and your representatives can't possibly manage the complex problems that face our nation. Notwithstanding the flowery language in the founding documents about 'we the people' and ' inalienable rights to life, liberty...yada, yada,' hard decisions must be made by those who are equipped to render them: Us. Not you.

"When we limit political speech -- we mean it. When we redefine marriage -- we mean it. When we discover a privacy clause in the Constitution, we refuse to be second-guessed especially by radio hosts and authors. When we tell you which lives are worth sustaining -- we mean it. We rule. We in the Judiciary. Not you. The sooner you understand that, the better. P.S. there is no Article III in the Constitution, you idiots!"

Signed, the Judiciary.

Morning Update
March 28, 2005
by Rush Limbaugh

Wouldn't be great if embryonic stem cell research found a means to bring Terri back to the thinking level of a liberal? Ahh, forget it, too small a step!

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."

--Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

--Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

Terri? you know her on a first name basis? Come on Mark, as soon as I saw the title I knew it was you, do you really like being so predictable?

By the age of 18, your girlfriend is closer to you than your parents are in this country. Now after many years of merriage, the schindlers are the ones to decide on their daughters fate?
BTW, your hero, Tom Delay, killed his father. After a car accident, he did not allow extarordinary measures to be taken to save his life.