Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
There's at most $50k left in there. It's basically gone.

I think her parents want her alive because they love the media attention and hob-nobbing with people like the governor. The woman's brain is apparently liquified.

they refuse to believe it's liquified. And they don't like their son in law.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
they refuse to believe it's liquified. And they don't like their son in law.

Those are bullshit cover stories, like the husband's explanation that she wouldn't want to be kept alive and that he feels it's wrong to keep her alive when her brain is liquified.

The real reason is, they just want the media attention.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So why does Congress make every effort to prevent federal courts from taking any kind of jurisdiction over death penalty cases, yet rushes to create jurisdiction (of what sort I have no idea) to hear a case that is purely one of state law (what evidence of desire to die in specific circumstances is necessary) and has absolutely no federal constitutional dimension?

I dunno.

Fuckers.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb I think her parents want her alive because they love the media attention and hob-nobbing with people like the governor. The woman's brain is apparently liquified.

Well, they could love her, too.

(ETA. C'mon. She's their daughter. They have docs claiming she hasn't received the proper treatment that could have brought her out of the coma, and that she could still wake. I think the scans have been less than helpful.)

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
I dunno.

Fuckers.

Surely you can come up with more than this. You seemed to know an awful lot about the Terri Schiavo case, and that's a less widespread issue than executions.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, they could love her, too.

And her husband could also love her, and not be in it for the big $50k payoff.

I was presenting an alternate theory.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
You must know more about this than me, I guess.

Or her doctors.

What do you believe her doctors are saying? My understanding is that they believe she is in an irreversible persistent vegetative state with no chance of recovery. Am I incorrect? Can you provide a cite?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
To which rules are you referring? (Filibusters haven't been around "forever". As con law goes, they're only about middle-earth-era.)

To take just one example that I found with a very quick Google search, the old blue slips. (Kos is Kos, whatever, but the particulars of this post match what I recall.)

The Senate has traditionally permitted individual Senators to slow things down in various ways. You may think this is good, and you may think it's bad, and you may even change your view from case to case depending on whose ox is being gored, but you can't say that procedures of this sort are unconstitutional because they thwart the will of the majority.

I'll wait here while club goes and looks for something reflecting the framers' abhorrence for parliamentary procedure, etc.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
What do you believe her doctors are saying? My understanding is that they believe she is in an irreversible persistent vegetative state with no chance of recovery. Am I incorrect? Can you provide a cite?

A cite? No, I canjust tell you what I remembered reading yeasterday - that there were thirty or so docs signing something that said she could still wake up, that . . . . some other stuff about how the evidence doesn't show it's irreversible. That's all I know. But, this "horrible screaming pain" thingie - you just made that part up, didn't you?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
they refuse to believe it's liquified. And they don't like their son in law.

As far as I understand it, she has no cerebral cortex. Nothing's there on the catscan. It's literally been replaced with water.

The family says that she'll get better with treatment. The family clearly needs treatment.

The HIPAA issues here are fairly interesting too. I'm wondering how the fuck the family knows anything about her after April 15, 2003. Cuz there's no way in hell he didn't automatically request restrictions on her medical records as soon as the Privacy Rule became effective. I suppose through court orders and subpeonas. I'd hate to be the Privacy Officer in that hospice.

Jesus, just don't let them do this to me.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
As far as I understand it, she has no cerebral cortex. Nothing's there on the catscan. It's literally been replaced with water.

My impression was that this isn't the case. If that's true, then, yeah, unplug her. There's nothing after that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You mean, like that rule that permits 10 (or so) senators on a committee could prevent a nominee from coming to the floor at all by voting no?

For example. There's nothing in Article I providing expressly for committees, or permitting committees to prevent the full Senate from voting on something.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Surely you can come up with more than this. You seemed to know an awful lot about the Terri Schiavo case, and that's a less widespread issue than executions.

There's a difference between "know" and "willing to try and explain deviant behavior."

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
There's a difference between "know" and "willing to try and explain deviant behavior."

Well, at least teh judge has some nads, and has ordered the tube removed. Kind of an interesting constitutional issue if Congress tries to prosecute anyone acting pursuant to the order on the ground that it frustrates its subpoena.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...maged_woman_47

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
A cite? No, I canjust tell you what I remembered reading yeasterday - that there were thirty or so docs signing something that said she could still wake up, that . . . . some other stuff about how the evidence doesn't show it's irreversible. That's all I know. But, this "horrible screaming pain" thingie - you just made that part up, didn't you?

Yes, I did. Mostly because I have a visceral response to this entire quandary that arises from some personal experiences I'd rather not get into. I was over the line. But I do wonder at the motivation for federal action to intervene in this particular case.

I wonder how many docs they could get to sign something saying she'll never wake up, or how many would back up the parents' assertion that she is minimally responsive to them, or how many of the thirty or so docs actually examined or treated her.