Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Objection. Unresponsive.

Objection overruled. You can't say something is unresponsive just because you don't like the answer.

[taxwonk]

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?

In essence yes, but the bill also gave the Fed. ct. the power to decide the issues de novo. I have to guess that a good judge would read between the lines and figure that meant he was supposed to ignore the legal arguments and the facts and rule the way Congress clearly wanted him to.

[chad87655]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

___

Shoot..... already, why don't we.

Hold them guilty, O God; By their own devices let them fall! In the multitude of their transgressions thrust them out, For they are rebellious against You. -- Psalm 5:10

To Judges Greer, Whittemore and the 11th Circuit, take a long hard look in the mirror:

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Objection overruled. You can't say something is unresponsive just because you don't like the answer.

constructive criticism-
particularly when you are in catch-up mode it would be helpful if you included the poster to which bilmore (or whomever) was responding. We have no idea what you mean here.

[Flanders]

Originally posted by chad87655
Hold them guilty, O God; By their own devices let them fall! In the multitude of their transgressions thrust them out, For they are rebellious against You. -- Psalm 5:10

To Judges Greer, Whittemore and the 11th Circuit, take a long hard look in the mirror:

Look you dip sh*t Eric Rudolph wannabe, I have reached the conclusion that you are obviously not a lawyer. What are you implying with your second amendment statement?

If you want someone to blame, blame the legislature they pass the laws. In the meantime, please take a trip to your public library and freshen up on the separation of church and state and the separation of powers. Then come back and make an educated post.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Flanders
Look you dip sh*t Eric Rudolph wannabe, I have reached the conclusion that you are obviously not a lawyer. What are you implying with your second amendment statement?

If you want someone to blame, blame the legislature they pass the laws. In the meantime, please take a trip to your public library and freshen up on the separation of church and state and the separation of powers. Then come back and make an educated post.

Please don't feed the trolls.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Save what millions of lives? American? Cite, please. Iraqi? I don't believe you're that altruistic. And if the system isn't more important than any one given life, why should anybody be willing to lay down theirs to protect it?

You need to draw a huge distinction between the system - i.e., freedom, democracy, our country, and all that - and The Procedure - a bunch of rule oriented people congratulating themselves who, in refusing to allow the parents of a woman to provide care for her and insisting that "the right person" has said she should die, have checked off the appropriate boxes on a checklist and so are blameless.

I do.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Objection overruled. You can't say something is unresponsive just because you don't like the answer.

No, but I can say it when the answer is an attempt to change the subject because you don't like where the first one went.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
You need to draw a huge distinction between the system - i.e., freedom, democracy, our country, and all that - and The Procedure - a bunch of rule oriented people congratulating themselves who, in refusing to allow the parents of a woman to provide care for her and insisting that "the right person" has said she should die, have checked off the appropriate boxes on a checklist and so are blameless.

I do.

These same parents admitted that they would have amputated all of her limbs if she had developed gangrine stemming out of diabetes and performed open heart surgery on her if she developed heart disease. These same parents admitted that they would have kept her on a feeding tube even if she clearly and unambiguously had let the world know that is not what she wanted.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by chad87655
Hold them guilty, O God; By their own devices let them fall! In the multitude of their transgressions thrust them out, For they are rebellious against You. -- Psalm 5:10

To Judges Greer, Whittemore and the 11th Circuit, take a long hard look in the mirror:

You lose. But thanks for playing.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
You need to draw a huge distinction between the system - i.e., freedom, democracy, our country, and all that - and The Procedure - a bunch of rule oriented people congratulating themselves who, in refusing to allow the parents of a woman to provide care for her and insisting that "the right person" has said she should die, have checked off the appropriate boxes on a checklist and so are blameless.

I do.

Question, Dr. Sanctimony.

Who is "the right person" to say that Terry should die in this situation? Most would say Terry. Indeed, the courts and the law say both that Terry is the right person, and that she has said so --best anyone can determine.

It seems as if you think her parents should be allowed to keep her empty shell of a body alive even if it were contrary to her wishes. I disagree.

Or is it that she should be maintained indefinitely even if there is "clear and convicing" evidence of her wishes so long as some family members don't buy it?

Look -- there are many levels of problems here. One of the big ones is that her parents and siblings will never let her go -- due to religious belief or otherwise. I think that a big part of the reason they refuse to countenance this passive euthanasia is because they view any suggestion that Terry would want it as equivalent to her committing suicide -- a mortal sin in the Catholic tradition.

It would not surprise me if they'd have tried to fight this even if she had a living will or DHCPOA. For gods sake, her brother was quoted two days ago as saying Terry "remined alert" -- ALERT!! -- after 15 years in pvs. It is important to view this in that context as well.

S_A_M

P.S. Slave -- meant to say this earlier -- you lose any credibility in criticizing Ty's choice of blogs when you post/link to things from the website of the National Right to Life Conference.

ETA [RT got some of it first.]

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
...The Procedure - a bunch of rule oriented people congratulating themselves who, in refusing to allow the parents of a woman to provide care for her and insisting that "the right person" has said she should die, have checked off the appropriate boxes on a checklist and so are blameless.

I do.

Or a bunch of rule oriented people congratulating themselves who, in refusing to allow consideration of possibly exculpatory evidence and insisting that "the people" have said he/she should die, have checked off the appropriate boxes on a death penalty checklist and so are blameless.

[Yeah, yeah, I'm changing the subject - I'm just struck by the irony of how people can be so sure the state judicial system gets it right in the face of credible contrary evidence, yet are so convinced the same state judicial system can be so wrong in the face of no credible contrary evidence. Sue me.]

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Question, Dr. Sanctimony.

Who is "the right person" to say that Terry should die in this situation? Most would say Terry. Indeed, the courts and the law say both that Terry is the right person, and that she has said so --best anyone can determine.

It seems as if you think her parents should be allowed to keep her empty shell of a body alive even if it were contrary to her wishes. I disagree.

Or is it that she should be maintained indefinitely even if there is "clear and convicing" evidence of her wishes so long as some family members don't buy it?

Look -- there are many levels of problems here. One of the big ones is that her parents and siblings will never let her go -- due to religious belief or otherwise. I think that a big part of the reason they refuse to countenance this passive euthanasia is because they view any suggestion that Terry would want it as equivalent to her committing suicide -- a mortal sin in the Catholic tradition.

It would not surprise me if they'd have tried to fight this even if she had a living will or DHCPOA. For gods sake, her brother was quoted two days ago as saying Terry "remined alert" -- ALERT!! -- after 15 years in pvs. It is important to view this in that context as well.

S_A_M

P.S. Slave -- meant to say this earlier -- you lose any credibility in criticizing Ty's choice of blogs when you post/link to things from the website of the National Right to Life Conference.

ETA [RT got some of it first.]

This is a very simple case. Many of you are getting caught up in the media hype. Whether she should be permitted to die is dependent on her wishes. The question has been tried and appealed at several levels of state and federal courts and is settled. Everything else is smoke an mirrors. All this about the husband not acting "husbandly" or having a conflict of interest is bullshit and, frankly, I would think that a board filled with lawyers would be able to identify these as red herrings.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Question, Dr. Sanctimony.

Keep in mind that this was a reply to Wonk's statement that I supported "The Procedure" when I supported the Iraq war. There is a huge distinction. And, yeah, it's one I'll be sanctimonious about.

Who is "the right person" to say that Terry should die in this situation? Most would say Terry. Indeed, the courts and the law say both that Terry is the right person, and that she has said so --best anyone can determine.

It seems as if you think her parents should be allowed to keep her empty shell of a body alive even if it were contrary to her wishes. I disagree.

Or is it that she should be maintained indefinitely even if there is "clear and convicing" evidence of her wishes so long as some family members don't buy it?

Look -- there are many levels of problems here. One of the big ones is that her parents and siblings will never let her go -- due to religious belief or otherwise. I think that a big part of the reason they refuse to countenance this passive euthanasia is because they view any suggestion that Terry would want it as equivalent to her committing suicide -- a mortal sin in the Catholic tradition.

It would not surprise me if they'd have tried to fight this even if she had a living will or DHCPOA. For gods sake, her brother was quoted two days ago as saying Terry "remined alert" -- ALERT!! -- after 15 years in pvs. It is important to view this in that context as well.

She's, at best, a petri dish. She's not coming back. That's a given.

A petri dish has very little sense of dignity. Any "dignity" resides solely in the egos and thoughts of her survivors.

Given all of that, I keep coming back to, where's the harm here? If they kill her, there's definite psych/emotional harm to her parents. If they keep her alive, there's harm to . . . her dignity? No, there's harm to someone else's conception of her dignity - which means, to me, the harm is to the person who decides to feel harm, there's harm to the person who is so invested of winning in this process that they will see her continuation as a defeat.

This was a hotly contested case, insofar as determining her "wishes" goes. Her parents obviously don't accept her husband's testimony. I think this is understandable. I doubt I would still think that in the presence of a DPOA.

There's a lot of comfort derived by people here in the following of the checklists. I think it's a nice easy way to not think of the underlying subject. Why not simply hand her over to her parents and walk away?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Or a bunch of rule oriented people congratulating themselves who, in refusing to allow consideration of possibly exculpatory evidence and insisting that "the people" have said he/she should die, have checked off the appropriate boxes on a death penalty checklist and so are blameless.

[Yeah, yeah, I'm changing the subject - I'm just struck by the irony of how people can be so sure the state judicial system gets it right in the face of credible contrary evidence, yet are so convinced the same state judicial system can be so wrong in the face of no credible contrary evidence. Sue me.]

You're replying to me, the death penalty opponent, right?