Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes. - Page 70

bilmore · 03-22-2005, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Without the TRO, she's dead before thay can have any meaningful trial.

Not to be to cynical, but it will take them some time to line up any new bullshit and wrap it in a pretty bow, while the husband can lean on lengthy trial/hearing record(s) and favorable prior rulings. Much easier for his side.

S_A_M

I didn't even read the stuff - did the new fed action simply give them the right to take the issue up to the fedcourt, but on the exact same legal arguments that have lost so many times before?

Secret_Agent_Man · 03-22-2005, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Forgive this non-litigator for asking, but why not try to do both? Can they not move to trial while appealing the TRO?

Sure they can, but, again, the TRO is essential -- so focus on it.

Burger said that he'd seen better pleadings from pro se prisoners. I was going to say something about purple crayon, but passed. Despite what Santorum said, the Court ruled on the causes of action presented to it. [In fairness to the parents' lawyers, they have very little to work with.]

S_A_M

Gattigap · 03-22-2005, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Sure they can, but, again, the TRO is essential -- so focus on it.

Burger said that he'd seen better pleadings from pro se prisoners. I was going to say something about purple crayon, but passed. Despite what Santorum said, the Court ruled on the causes of action presented to it. [In fairness to the parents' lawyers, they have very little to work with.]

S_A_M

Wow. With so much GOP political candlepower focused on it, you'd imagine that they could dig some hi-falutin' litigators to work on this, no?

Spanky · 03-22-2005, 05:09 PM

[IMG]C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\Clintonportrait.gif[/IMG]

leagleaze · 03-22-2005, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
[IMG]C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\Clintonportrait.gif[/IMG]

You need to upload the pic somewhere to post it.

Replaced_Texan · 03-22-2005, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I didn't even read the stuff - did the new fed action simply give them the right to take the issue up to the fedcourt, but on the exact same legal arguments that have lost so many times before?

I think they're stuck with the same legal arguments. He's the guardian, Florida law applies.

Secret_Agent_Man · 03-22-2005, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I didn't even read the stuff - did the new fed action simply give them the right to take the issue up to the fedcourt, but on the exact same legal arguments that have lost so many times before?

Essentially. Here is the text of the statute Burger provided yesterday. It creates standing in the federal courts -- but has no substantive provisions to create any new cause of action or change the applicable law. It talks about a trial de novo -- but expresssly states that it creates no new rights. Santorum should be ashamed to blather on like that. He's supposedly a lawyer.

So, the standards for a TRO remain unchanged -- and (despite the grave harm that can arise from denying the TRO) still require some likelihood of success on the merits wrt the same old issues. The Court decided that Plaintiffs hadn't shown a likelihood of success.

S_A_M

"For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

"SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.

"The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

"SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.

"Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the 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.

"SEC. 3. RELIEF.

"After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

"SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.

"Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

"SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.

"SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.

"Nothing in this act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--

(1) to assisting suicide,
(2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.

"SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.

"Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.

"SEC. 8. NO EFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.

"Nothing in this act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990.

"SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

"It is the Sense of the Congress that the 109th Congress should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care."

Secret_Agent_Man · 03-22-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Wow. With so much GOP political candlepower focused on it, you'd imagine that they could dig some hi-falutin' litigators to work on this, no?

Heh.

I'd imagine the usual high profile and/or big-firm suspects were somehow "unavailable." This case is radioactive for anyone but a true believer.

S_A_M

Sexual Harassment Panda · 03-22-2005, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leagleaze
You need to upload the pic somewhere to post it.

Alternately, if you can find it online somewhere, just copy the link and use the IMG button above, like so:

bilmore · 03-22-2005, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Alternately, if you can find it online somewhere, just copy the link and use the IMG button above, like so:

Um, where exactly IS this "Image" button? And, did Bush give this guy permission to push it?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 03-22-2005, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I didn't even read the stuff - did the new fed action simply give them the right to take the issue up to the fedcourt, but on the exact same legal arguments that have lost so many times before?

looks like this has been answered already, but, yeah, and with no collateral estoppel or other precedential effect/binding nature to them.

Sexual Harassment Panda · 03-22-2005, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Um, where exactly IS this "Image" button? And, did Bush give this guy permission to push it?

Well, he's standing there with his hands in his pockets, so I guess we can infer consent sub silento.

bilmore · 03-22-2005, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Essentially. Here is the text of the statute Burger provided yesterday. It creates standing in the federal courts -- but has no substantive provisions to create any new cause of action or change the applicable law.

Cool. I know that I always count it as a win when I am given permission to make a losing argument again, in a more expensive forum.

(This can't be right. They would go to these lengths, and take such a huge (and expected) PR hit simply for the sake of letting them try it out again on a fedcourt judge? I'm guessing I'm missing something here.)

Gattigap · 03-22-2005, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Cool. I know that I always count it as a win when I am given permission to make a losing argument again, in a more expensive forum.

(This can't be right. They would go to these lengths, and take such a huge (and expected) PR hit simply for the sake of letting them try it out again on a fedcourt judge? I'm guessing I'm missing something here.)

Well, watching Santorum's dithering on the subject today, we can't help but notice that it gives the GOP the opportunity to decry activist judges. Perhaps, just perhaps, that's the endgame.

Is that too cynical, bilmore?

chad87655 · 03-22-2005, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
so I guess we can infer consent sub silento.

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for Terri Schiavo
and I didn't speak up,
because I didn't have standing,
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.