Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I said that hospice workers who give care to those who are dying are going to be harmed by this when it is alleged, as slave and The Sock have been wont to point out over and over again, that withdrawing nutrition and hydration is akin to murder and torture. I also said that the thousands of families who made the same painful decision will likely be second-guessing themselves, having similarly been branded as murderers and torturers. I stand by that.

Have you read the ad litem report? I don't think anyone's feelings have been unacknowledged in this situation.

I read the whole thing. He did a nice job. My issue is that he did a nice job within the framework that he was given, and I think the wrong framework was chosen. He judged by adherence to The Process. I don't think he addressed my chosen framework of "what's the harm in letting her live."

And, while I agree with you that the murder/torture talk is misplaced, I think you're not giving the people who go through that enough credit. Ultimately, it's the circumstances of each individual case that we live by, and we judge our choices in that context. Anyone who has made it to that point knows that there's no torture or murder involved.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Ty, we're fer sure anon here, right?

What do you mean, "we," white man?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Why go for an en banc hearing in the 11th Circuit instead of directly to the Supreme Court?

1) Chances are better?
2) Already have one judge, maybe you get more, to stand up for you before going to the Supremes.
3) Gives you a bit more time to craft a petition for cert.

I don't see too many justices getting into this one. Scalia and Thomas would probably be the most likely ones to have moral concerns with letting her die, but I can't imagine Scalia not teeing off on Congress for creating this massive exception to ordinary rules of federalism.

If I were guessing, I'd say Rehnquist and O'Connor would be most likely to do anything. None of the liberals are likely to want to play the game (maybe Stevens, but I doubt it).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What do you mean, "we," white man?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
AS WE PASS 100 HOURS OF STARVATION AND DEHYDRATION ...
by Andy McCarthy, NRO

it is worth remembering that the excruciating slowness of the execution here, the incremental-ness of death, is designed by its champions to inure us to it. After the first hour, the second passes with far less fanfare, and the third less still. I've been following this closely, and I needed to remind myself today how many hours Terri Schiavo has actually been without sustenance by counting the days since Friday afternoon and multiplying by 24. How much more easily the time passes, and the world around us changes, for those following only fleetingly, or not at all.

Why should we think this is intentional? Consider, say, a month ago, before Terri's plight took center stage, if you had asked someone in the abstract: "How would you feel about starving and dehydrating a defenseless, brain-damaged woman?" The answer is easy to imagine: "Outrageous, atrocious -- something that wouldn't be done to an animal and couldn't be done to the worst convicted murderer."

But then it actually happens ... slowly. You're powerless to stop it, and ... you find your life goes on. There are kids and jobs and triumphs and tragedies and everyday just-getting-by. An atrocity becomes yet another awful thing going on in the world. After a day, or maybe two, of initial flabbergast, we're talking again about social security reform, China, North Korea, Hezbollah, etc. A woman's snail-like, gradual torture goes from savagery to just one of those sad facts of life. As is the case with other depravities once believed unthinkable, it coarsens us. We slowly, and however reluctantly, accept it. We accept it. The New York Times no doubt soon "progresses" from something like "terminating life by starvation," to "the dignity of death by starvation," to "the medical procedure that opponents refer to as starvation." And so the culture of life slides a little more. The culture of death gains a firmer foothold.

Of course, the physical needs of the body are not limited to food and water. There is also air. But no judge, even in Florida, would ever have had the nerve in Terri's case to permit "the medical procedure that opponents refer to as asphyxiation." Too crude. Too quick. Too obviously murder of a vulnerable innocent. Brazen, instant savagery might wake us from our slumber. For the culture of death, better that we sleep.
___

Shoot the bitch with a lethal injection already, why don't we.

Do you think there should be a right to assisted suicide, or do you just disbelieve the evidence and finding that Terry Schiavo would have wanted to be taken off life support in these circumstances?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Gary Becker on the relationship between economic and political freedom discussed here.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Jesus was executed by the Romans somewhere around 30 AD. I think you are referring to his birth, which was probably around 3 BC. The 2000th annivesary of Jesus's death will be around 2030. BTW: Jesus was not born in December, he was born sometime in the spring, but the Roman Empire under Constantine put the holiday near the pagan holiday of the Solcitice so it would be a holiday the pagans were used to. Jesus was not executed in the Spring, again the holidy was put near the Spring equinox so the Pagans would also celebrate during the same holiday. I find it interesting that someone who seems to place a lot of value on the life and death of Jesus would know so little about these events.

Let me guess: you were there?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Uh, club, STP.

I did. What's your point?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Let me guess: you were there?

I asked you to see if you wanted to see our Lord and Savior executed but you were just too busy. I think you said "I can't get excited every time some peasant Jew gets executed. Even if he is the Son of God and is dying for my sins". Maybe next time I say that you should check out an event because it might be an important historical event, you might give me the benefit of the doubt.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Gary Becker on the relationship between economic and political freedom discussed here.

He stole all my ideas (or at least ideas I stole from somewhere else). Can I sue him or something?

Over at the Becker/Posner blog, Gary Becker assesses the state of thinking about the relationship between political and economic freedoms:


Since both economic and political freedoms are highly valued, it is essential to understand how they interact as nations evolve. The history of different countries during the past century strongly indicates that economic freedoms over time typically push societies toward political freedoms. To take a few examples, South Korea, Taiwan, and Chile all started their economic development under military regimes. Korea and Taiwan both began freeing their economies around 1960 after centralized direction of their economies failed to produce economic growth. Chile began opening its economy under General Pinochet in 1981, also after his centralized approach to the Chilean economy failed. Within two decades, all three nations had achieved, or were moving rapidly toward, political democracies, with vibrant competition for elections among competing parties, and a mainly free press.

The path from political to economic freedom, by contrast, is slower and more uncertain. It took India over four decades to begin to loosen its extensive controls over private companies, labor markets, start-ups, imports from abroad, and numerous other activities. It still has a long way to go. Mexico has had a free press and considerable political freedom for a century or so, but economic freedoms did not begin to evolve until the latter part of the 1980’s. Israel has fierce competition among political parties, but continues to have an overly controlled economy.

[Replaced_Texan]

One wonders what went wrong in the GOP judge reeducation workshop. Senator Frothy Mixture of Fecal Matter and Lube is gonna be pissssssed.

Whoa

In a 10-2 decision, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) refused Bob and Mary Schindler's request for an "expedited rehearing" by the full court. A three-judge panel from the same court ruled against the family earlier Wednesday.

I'm guessing that Justice Kennedy will be hearing shortly from the Schindler family.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
He stole all my ideas (or at least ideas I stole from somewhere else). Can I sue him or something?

He has a Nobel Prize, so he's pretty much authorized to steal stuff. At least I think that's the way it works.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Whoa

Does anyone know if the Full Faith & Credit Clause obliges the federal government to respect state judgments?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You do have a court saying, based upon testimony, we believe she did want to die. But there is a huge problem with hearsay. "State of mind" doesn't answer that- SOM isn't an exception if it is the ultimate issue, and plus the SOM months or years earlier is of little value here. Of course evidence decisions are for the courts, but this one seems pretty suspect.

Your points are legitimate -- but your statements about the SOM hearsay exception under FRE 803 [or the state equivalent] are incorrect. You also seem to miss the point that even a written living will is no more than hearsay evidence of then-existing state of mind. [Though it is much more reliable hearsay because it is written, notarized and signed.]

In the absence of evidence that one has changed one's views -- by either revoking a living will or, in the absence of a document, making contradictory verbal statements at a later date -- the most recent evidence of state of mind is properly presumed to hold. I think that is the right result.

I'm not in favor of a system where one must be sustained forever (unless everyone quietly agrees to secretly pull the plug). We had that already. I also think that, while a written directive is to be strongly encouraged -- it should not necessarily be required. Thus, we're stuck with messy fact-finding situations.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Does anyone know if the Full Faith & Credit Clause obliges the federal government to respect state judgments?

Public policy exception?