Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
There's the federalist question, where Republicans have been converted to proponents of an interventionist federal government by repeated victories on the national stage. Odd that.

This is the part of this case that really ticks me off. What business does the federal government have in this matter? Fucking hipocrates.

ETA: From Andrew Sullivan:

• So it is now the federal government's role to micro-manage baseball and to prevent a single Florida woman who is trapped in a living hell from dying with dignity. We're getting to the point when conservatism has become a political philosophy that believes that government - at the most distant level - has the right to intervene in almost anything to achieve the right solution. Today's conservatism is becoming yesterday's liberalism.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore


I don't think this is an issue that should be decided by a judge based on 51% of the evidence. We require more evidence to fine me for speeding than to kill someone? Wow. As I stated earlier, in most courts, if you haven't filled out the form, then no other testimony will suffice to prove an intent to be unplugged.

In many states, you don't need even that much, since there's a presumption of guilt from the issuance of the ticket.

But you're making it sound like the evidence is relevant to a third party's wishes. That's not right--it's what her wishes were. The evidence was stronger that her wishes were to die, rather than to live. Why should the evidence have to be any stronger than 51%? And, if it should at least in your mind, why should the citizens of Florida, who elect officials, formed a constitution, and, through their elected officials appoint judges, not be able to reach a different conclusion? Because the republicans have a majority in Congress?

This is a really ugly case, and even as a conservative you should be frightened. Club's sullivan quote points to the problem. When the dems regain power--in 2 years or 25--what's to stop them from imposing their sense of "right" on you? Maybe they decide that your kids shouldn't be forced by parents to adopt their religion (if it's not the "right" one), or maybe they decide that your career choice isn't legitimate. Who knows, but if Congress is going to decide it knows best for each individual, we have truly reached a frightening point for our democracy.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
I guess my problem here, similar to my problem with death penalty cases, goes deeper than, did we follow The Procedure. I'm not that impressed that we followed The Procedure when we are using The Procedure to justify killing someone. We can have seventy-two layers of appellate review followed by a voice vote among all nursing home residents throughout the country, and I still end up thinking that, if someone wants to maintain her care at private expense, why would we ever want to kill her off?

Because that's what several courts have found that she would have wanted, and we should do everything in our power to ensure that our wishes regarding self-determination are followed.

Several people, including and especially her husband, have testified that she had expressed clear wishes that she did not want to be kept alive artificially, and though it would have been impossible for her to have foreseen this particular circumstance, the courts found that she would have wanted to be removed from life support.

We don't give blood to Jehovah's Witnesses in this country, even though there have been several cases where they've died for lack of transfusion. We don't force care on Christian Scientists to get care.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
I don't think this is an issue that should be decided by a judge based on 51% of the evidence. We require more evidence to fine me for speeding than to kill someone? Wow. As I stated earlier, in most courts, if you haven't filled out the form, then no other testimony will suffice to prove an intent to be unplugged.

I believe that the standard applied was "clear and convincing." Which is not quite up to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level, but is more than the 51% required under "preponderance of the evidence" test.

(clean out your mailbox, dude -- I tried to send this as a PM so that my lie about not talking about this case would not be so obvious, and to avoid cluttering the board)

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is the part of this case that really ticks me off. What business does the federal government have in this matter? Fucking hipocrates.

No, fucking panderers. The fucking religious right was fucking bitching about the fact that they're getting no love when we focus on stuff like ANWR and Social Security.

Which makes this whole thing even worse.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I believe that the standard applied was "clear and convincing." Which is not quite up to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level, but is more than the 51% required under "preponderance of the evidence" test.

(clean out your mailbox, dude -- I tried to send this as a PM so that my lie about not talking about this case would not be so obvious, and to avoid cluttering the board)

The standard in Cruzan is "clear and convincing."

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
This is a really ugly case, and even as a conservative you should be frightened.

How much more frightening can it get than a judicial decision, based on hearsay, that someone would have chosen to be unplugged?

Anyway, on to Howard.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The standard in Cruzan is "clear and convincing."

And that was merely a standard that was permitted under the federal constitution, not one mandated by its penumbrae and emanations. (i.e., a lower standard enacted by the state would also comport with the const.)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Bob
. . . and to avoid cluttering the board.

"Cluttering the board"?

It's not a finite resource, and, even if it were, your posts are normally a good use of the resource. Clutter away.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
How much more frightening can it get than a judicial decision, based on hearsay, that someone would have chosen to be unplugged?

I would say far more frightening that the decision be based on the visceral and political knee-jerk reactions by 200 or so politicians who have absolutely no connection to the case than it be based on the hearsay of my spouse.

You keep going back to the evidence. Why is the state court's decision on the evidence that was available insufficient to be determinative? Is it your lingering mistrust in the florida courts from 2000?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
"Cluttering the board"?

It's not a finite resource, .

Ty proved otherwise once.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I would say far more frightening that the decision be based on the visceral and political knee-jerk reactions by 200 or so politicians who have absolutely no connection to the case than it be based on the hearsay of my spouse.

Like club, I don't think the feds should be talking about this. That's not my point (should it be determined that I actually have a point.)

You keep going back to the evidence. Why is the state court's decision on the evidence that was available insufficient to be determinative? Is it your lingering mistrust in the florida courts from 2000?

It's based on my years of clerking for a similar judge while in law school, and years of working with, and in spite of, similar judges since. I can live with them deciding, based on hearsay, that I contracted for the sale of 500 widgets, but only delivered 400. I have a problem with them listening to evidence that someone "would want to die in this situation", and evidence that "she never said that at all, and in fact was a devout Catholic who would object", and deciding which to believe, and then killing somene on that basis. It's not enough, in my mind. Again, fill out the damn form.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
Again, fill out the damn form.

Did you fill out the form when you were 25 years old?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Did you fill out the form when you were 25 years old?

When I was 22, to be exact. It was called something different then. And you filled it out using a quill.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
When I was 22, to be exact. It was called something different then. And you filled it out using a quill.

Why did you bother? At that time, federalism meant something. And states were relevant.