home

Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 08:01:18 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Bump and Update: The Supreme Court has denied Terri Schiavo's parents appeal to reinsert the feeding tube. It was a one sentence order, available here (pdf). CNN is talking about the "alleged anonymous Republican Talking Points Memo" and how it had a section saying that Rep. Bill Nelson's congressional seat could be affected.

A Reverend named Pat Mahoney is calling for the country to fast tomorrow on Good Friday in solidarity with Terri Schiavo.

Update: The Schiavo case has caused Tristero to resume blogging. He's been silent since Election Day when Kerry lost.

**********

Original Post: 3/23 9pm

Terri Schiavo's parents have lodged their appeal tonight with the Supreme Court. I suspect its rejection will be fast and tersely worded.

< Abortion Foes Let Their Own Kids Get Arrested | Prosecutor Calls Blake Jurors Stupid >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief | 75 comments (75 topical)
    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 08:57:21 PM EST
    Talkleft, What do ou think the Supreme Court will do? How long Until they decide? Is it like an hour or more like a day? Thanks in advance

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#2)
    by roy on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 09:01:57 PM EST
    I wonder how the conspiracy theorists will reconcile the court's rejection with supposedly "installing" Bush as president.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 09:33:38 PM EST
    Roy, Help me out here: Are you saying that to prove that Scalia, Thomas, et al conspired to unelect Gore in 2000, they must rubber stamp every insane notion that their conservative confreres had from then until the cows come home? I'm having trouble wih that. And I don't even think there was anything like a conspiracy, just blatantly obvious corruption.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 09:55:05 PM EST
    On a related note, a Colorado hospital trade and lobbying group has decided to capitalize on the recent demand for advance directives and will publish their own free kit on March 25.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#5)
    by cp on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 10:00:09 PM EST
    one can only hope it's quick, blunt, but with a very pointed slap at congress, for overstepping their constitutional bounds. not that it'll stop delay, or frist, or gw, since it's become fairly obvious that they haven't a clue what our constitution actually says.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#6)
    by Darryl Pearce on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 10:57:09 PM EST
    I wonder how the conspiracy theorists will reconcile the court's rejection with supposedly "installing" Bush as president. Yeah... the atmosphere's very odious and toxic, isn't it? There's so much murk it's hard to tell what's what.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 10:57:58 PM EST
    I wonder how the conspiracy theorists will reconcile the court's rejection with supposedly "installing" Bush as president.
    Letting personal partisan preference trump law isn't conspiracy, its just plain bias.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 10:59:05 PM EST
    one can only hope it's quick, blunt, but with a very pointed slap at congress, for overstepping their constitutional bounds.
    Since there is no reason for the Court to address the Constitutionality, its better that they don't, IMO.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 11:10:32 PM EST
    I expect that the Supreme Court will issue a short rejection no later than Thursday afternoon (Eastern time). Some clerk probably has it already written.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 12:37:37 AM EST
    cmdicely: "Letting personal partisan preference trump law isn't conspiracy, its just plain bias." Yeah, sure. That's why Greg Palast has just busted (scroll down) the neocon-Big oil conflict over how to invade Iraq and for what. Within days of Bush's accession to power. Gee, that 911 changed everything a lot earlier than anyone thought. Like how cassus belli showed up to create a basis for taking over the portion of Afghanistan needed for Cheney's pipeline projects. With literally billions of dollars on the line, you are willing to concede that there might have been some bias? Hilarious. The proof is in the fruit, as Jesus said, and Bush's fruit is uniformly rotten. And it ate down through the SCOTUS a lot deeper than 'bias.'

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 03:37:53 AM EST
    Scalia's lone dissent should be a piece of work.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#12)
    by jerry on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 05:29:46 AM EST
    Watching Jeb Bush rush to the microphone to try and get custody of Terry was nausiating. He had that look on his face of, "Oh by the way, I'm running for president on 08". Right wing religious fanatics have a stranglehold on this country, and they are not about to let go. It's one thing to be led down the losers path by a bumbling idiot president but for his brother to make such a blatunt move to overide the courts is sickening.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 05:37:22 AM EST
    We are all puppets. As if Schiavo deserves a fraction of this attention with everything else that is going on in this country.....

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 05:41:32 AM EST
    cp - Tell us why another and equal branch of government is supposed to bow down to the judicary. That is pure nonsense. Congress has every right to comment, pass bills and act. We are not yet under a dictaorship of the courts. PIL - Parnoia becomes you. Without it you would have no focus. Jerry - What? When was the last time you were forced to go to church? Or pray? Or anything religious? Hasn't happened, bubba. Won't happen. Come out from the bed.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 08:11:08 AM EST
    Folks talk as if the judiciary is pitted against the legislature sans Constitution and Bill of Rights. Sure. If they didn't exist you could say that the judges are "making up" opinions. Fortunately for most of us, we do have them and the judiciary is obligated to use them in decision making (another vast left wing conspiracy BTW - I think the founding fathers had a, gasp, liberal bias). Thank God (or the power of the universe - feel free to choose) that the courts are allowing this woman to reunite her spirit and body. Her parents are missing her last days/hours as they are shamelessly exploited. I feel for them when they realize that Terri is gone and they missed her passing. I wish them the strength and courage to turn away from the circus and be with their daughter as she passes.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 08:27:39 AM EST
    U.S. National - AP Poll: Evangelicals Oppose Gov't on Schiavo
    More than two-thirds of people who describe themselves as evangelicals and conservatives disapprove of the intervention by Congress and President Bush (news - web sites) in the case of the Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman at the center of a national debate. A CBS News poll found that four of five people polled opposed federal intervention, with levels of disapproval among key groups supporting the GOP almost that high.
    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#20)
    by Kitt on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 08:36:29 AM EST
    Talk Left: "Original Post: 3/23 9pm Terri Schiavo's parents have lodged their appeal tonight with the Supreme Court. I suspect its rejection will be fast and tersely worded." Yep, so tersely worded it was without comment or dissent.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 08:37:01 AM EST
    Yeah, sure. That's why Greg Palast has just busted (scroll down) the neocon-Big oil conflict over how to invade Iraq and for what. Within days of Bush's accession to power. Gee, that 911 changed everything a lot earlier than anyone thought.
    The Neocons have been openly agitating for war with Iraq since long before Bush came to power, and Big Oil's interests are obvious. Its very clear that Bush was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and saw 9/11 as an excuse. While the latter may have been somewhat hidden, the former never was. If a "conspiracy", its been a rather open one. It also has little to do with the Bush v. Gore decision.
    With literally billions of dollars on the line, you are willing to concede that there might have been some bias?
    I don't recall every typing the words "might" or "some" that you emphasize here. Its interesting that the words you see, apparently, as key are your own invention. No, I see that there was clear, egregious bias. Whether there was also "conspiracy" is secondary, as there was gross abuse of position whether or not there was "conspiracy". I was criticizing the characterization of critics of Bush v. Gore as "conspiracy theorists", but thanks for the demonstration of what an obsessed conspiracy theorists, blinded by fanaticism, actually looks like.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 09:01:47 AM EST
    This is Jeb's chance to inherit the looney right. His big brother forced him out of the 2008 presidential campaign in a deal with McCain and now Jeb is trying to stake out the looney right and force a draft of himself. People who think what congress and the likes of Randall Terry are terrible won't vote on this issue or even organize around it but the right will. Jeb the ultimate political wh**e

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 09:14:01 AM EST
    CNN is talking about the "alleged anonymous Republican Talking Points Memo" and how it had a section saying that Rep. Bill Nelson's congressional seat could be affected.
    Bill Nelson has a congressional seat, all right, but it's in the U.S. Senate, not the House of Representatives.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 09:24:19 AM EST
    What kind of sick country makes the parents watch as their child is starved to dead? The same country that has murdered 46 million unborn children in the last 32 years. Criminals on death row are ineligible of such treatment, so what makes this woman eligible? Welcome to America, where we have the legal right to murder the degenerates both young and old. It is evident that the liberal ideology in America, is really about your right to murder other American's, and only limited to those Americans that have not committed any wrong doings. If they had, the liberals would then fight for their right to live! The two most common elements in American society are hydrogen and stupidity!

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 09:33:08 AM EST
    That's right, Burger Boy, and you demonstrate an excess of both. I have as little use for the hysterical right as the hysterical left.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#25)
    by roy on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 09:37:34 AM EST
    CNN is talking about the "alleged anonymous Republican Talking Points Memo"...
    ABC is backpedaling wrt the significance of that memo. Nobody seems to know who wrote it or who distributed it, but they're happy to imply that the GOP is wholly responsible for both. (I'm not saying that an iffy memo undermines all criticism of Congress, but if it's important enough for the major networks to discuss, it's important enough to scrutinize.)

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 09:43:34 AM EST
    Can I ask when do the death camps open up? This is an evil aganda and it won't stop with her but will only stop when people "see it for what it is" the making of the third Reich all over again, don't be little fools stand up now or be killed by this system of total madness. read the Nuermberg race laws 1935 the protection laws 1936 read the ideals of hitler and understand your non government, and start to save your families from an evil ideals.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 09:45:56 AM EST
    Roy, you're ability to bend over backwards to give the Republicans the benefit would be moving and touching but for one thing: If George W, Bush said 2 + 2 is 4, I would ask a friend to design a bulletproof computer program to prove it beyond any doubt whatsoever before I'd accept it. You know just as well as I that the right wing extremists in charge of the US government have lied far too often to trust them on anything

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 09:47:02 AM EST
    Fred Dawes Godwin's law. You lose.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 09:57:10 AM EST
    It's too bad that this case has turned into the same old Democrats vs Republicans. If a person has loving family members who are willing to shoulder the responsiblity and expenses of taking care of their daughter, then why would anyone else care???

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 10:06:41 AM EST
    g wiz, Because Michael Schiavo is a decent man who loves his wife and wants to end the awful travesty of her present existence, certain that is consonant with her wishes. The courts have determined that Schiavo is a responsible guardian and that her wife is in a persistent vegetative state. It is his decision what to do. Given what the courts heard, again and again and again, it is illegal and immoral to deny that decision, which he and the courts have determined is his wife's decision. That's why.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 10:07:03 AM EST
    Isn't it odd that God has not called upon His Money Changer Evangelical Faith Healers to save the day? I also wonder why their followers aren't begging them to insert their God given powers into TERRY and CURE HER? Hmmm I suspect, like Professional wrestling both Faith Healers and their followers really don't want to know what they really are, FRAUDS.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 10:08:39 AM EST
    Good point Ed Beckmann..where is Benny Hinn when you really need him

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 10:16:58 AM EST
    DA - Be as snarky as you want, but be accurate. I did not say Congress should physically overide the courts, I said: "Congress has every right to comment, pass bills and act. We are not yet under a dictaorship of the courts." DA, we went through this a few weeks ago when you, and others, got all in a dither when I asserted a right to criticize the courts. I still consider myself a free man, so I think separate but equal works both ways, and I will not bend a knee to either. But you may drop to the ground and kiss the hem of the master's robe if you desire. Us social liberals and Jacksonians do not accept the idea of "betters." We believe in the common man. And yes. It is extremely arrogant for the court to say: Go ahead, have another look in this extremely public case. As for your hateful wish against me, I am not surprised. Those who are always crying about violence are often the first to use it. To your final point, I again note that you take every opportunity to mistate my position which remains the same: There is enough questions about the husbands actions to rate an open hearing. WHY DOES YOUR DESIRE TO WIN OVERCOME WHAT SHOULD BE A NATURAL DESIRE FOR ALL THE FACTS TO COME OUT? For example, read the sworn affidavit of Heidi Law, care giver to Terri Schiavo It alone should make you want this investigated. Fred - I hope you overstate, but you have a point.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 10:23:12 AM EST
    I'm sure Ken Lay has offered up plenty of sworn affiadavits -the charges both both of the "nurses" have been thorough debunked. The slandering of the husband is just the work of lazy slugs who know they have no argument.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#36)
    by roy on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 10:27:32 AM EST
    "Congress has every right to comment, pass bills and act. We are not yet under a dictaorship of the courts."
    What specific statement in the Constitution gives Fedgov the right to supercede state law on this matter? If there is no answer to that question, then Congress exceded its authority.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 10:43:33 AM EST
    From experience in working with death row prisoners in TX for the last 8 years, I think the analogy between a death row population and Terri Schiavo is out of place and context. In fact they do have one thing in common as they have all been turned into cheap political propaganda, other than that the parallel doesn't hold. Terri Schiavo's case has been turned into a shameful political circus in total disregard and disrespect of the law. Private matters should remain private, how can one life hold that much more importance than the 18,000 Americans who die each year from lack of resources to access medical treatment? how can Congress interfere to satisfy the Christian right? I am somewhat concerned to read about the physical process of Terri Schiavo's death, it seems a slow process, doctors say it's painless, I'm not convinced. No more than I am convinced about the lethal cocktail used in the TX death chamber which still does not meet veterinarian standards... The way politcians and the media are dissecting the Schiavo issue is pretty despicable altogether. Let's see what the Bush gang has in store after the denial by the SC to hear the case, we know they are capable of the worse, they have proven it many times and there's no reason to believe it's going to change anytime soon.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 10:43:56 AM EST
    As I use my "Great Karnack" powers I an see into the future when The Democrats control both the House and Senate. The News show are shaking with the Shreiks and squeals of Wingnuts complaining about the federal Govt interfereing in states rights !

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 10:45:55 AM EST
    jim, i read it you link. that m.s. didn't (according to this person) want physical therapy for his wife in an irreversible pvs doesn't tell me anything other than she WAS in a pvs. courts and doctors have pored over this case. it's time to let her go. and to stop demonizing this husband. the hypocrisy of the right on this grandstanding is much more disgusting and worth of investigating. the same bought and paid for wingers in congress and the white house who want to limit tort reform and disability and medicaid, all those things that have been able to pay for terri's care all these years, they are nothing but wretches and charlatans, exploiting the most painful decision a family will ever make.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 10:48:57 AM EST
    George Bush should sent the national gard or something in there to get terri out, since these moron power hungry liberal judges are set on her death. Isn't starving someone to death agaist the constitution? LIFE, libery and the pursuit of happyness. Also someone needs to lanch a chriminal investigation against Michael, things seem quit fishy.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 10:50:14 AM EST
    Load - And what links do you have? I mean besides your word? And what is the motive for the person to lie? Again. Let's hear all the facts. That's all I am asking for. roy - The most basic. Protection of the rights of the citizen, and a disabled citizen at that. Isn't that the basis for many federal laws protecting the disabled? Wouldn't that be the basis of a law protecting gay marriage? Civil rights?

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#42)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 10:52:10 AM EST
    add jim, also, i don't think a certified nursing assistant is qualified to assess responsiveness in a pvs patient, where involuntary motions and sounds can often be mistaken for genuine responsiveness. but how do we KNOW? it's tough, i can't disagree, but we have brains scans and experts and all the tools of modern medicine that show us there is NO responsiveness, only involuntary impulses.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#43)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 10:56:38 AM EST
    Media Matters has again exposed Hannity and Scarborough for the liars the are, and at the same time removed the last iota of credibility posessed by the Christian right's only medical authority. C'mon Jim. Snap out of it.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 10:57:50 AM EST
    CNN fact checked the nurse stories and neither had any validity you can find it on their web site --the same courtesy in providing links you give The facts have been heard that is what has been ruled on over and over but you don't like the facts so you continue to pretend there are unanswered questions and you would take the word of anyone who appears to support your position. But you never bother to check any facts and only use information that backs up your opinion. You have no interest in the truth ever.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 11:08:04 AM EST
    What specific statement in the Constitution gives Fedgov the right to supercede state law on this matter?
    The specific law that was passed could be argued to be justified by the Due Process Clause and the Enforcement Clause of the 14th Amendment, since it doesn't supercede state law, it just provides a forum for de novo review of the legal claims to, in theory, assure that due process has been given. Of course, that law also has had quite little practical effect, since there is little substance offered for the claims of denial of due process being advanced by the Schindlers.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 11:11:32 AM EST
    WHY DOES YOUR DESIRE TO WIN OVERCOME WHAT SHOULD BE A NATURAL DESIRE FOR ALL THE FACTS TO COME OUT?
    All the facts have come out, most of them many times, in the years of litigation around this issue. The fact that their is a paucity of facts on the side that you wish would win doesn't mean that all the facts haven't come out, it just means that you are on the side not supported by the weight of the facts.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 11:11:54 AM EST
    supersede

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#48)
    by Sailor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 11:13:50 AM EST
    et al - pay no attention to the strawman behind the RNC talking points. Everything he has brought up and been proved wrong so he just shouts louder (caps and bold now;-). What motive would they have? Well, they are christofascist wackjobs, crazy people who believe in myths based around some tart lying to her dad about how she got knocked up don't need motives that sane people can understand.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#49)
    by nolo on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 11:15:20 AM EST
    Thank you, TonyB.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#50)
    by roy on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 11:28:09 AM EST
    Jim,
    The most basic. Protection of the rights of the citizen, and a disabled citizen at that.
    I don't want to put words in your mouth, but do you mean Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, referring to providing for the "general welfare"? Protection of rights, or providing for general welfare, is not a power of Congress. It is a goal. The powers available to pursue any goal are specifically enumerated. There's a copy of the Constitution here. If I mis-guessed the clause you refer to, please correct me.
    Isn't that the basis for many federal laws protecting the disabled?
    No. They're based on regulating interstate commerce (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3).
    Wouldn't that be the basis of a law protecting gay marriage?
    I don't recall any such proposed federal law. Congressional attacks on gay marriage have been based on amending the Constitution, not simply passing a law.
    Civil rights?
    No. Civil rights laws, again, are based on regulating interstate commerce. cmdicely,
    The specific law that was passed could be argued to be justified by the Due Process Clause and the Enforcement Clause of the 14th Amendment...
    The 14th Amendment does not add any powers to Congress. If anything, it further restricts Congress.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 11:32:56 AM EST
    BurgerBoy at 10:24 AM:
    What kind of sick country makes the parents watch as their child is starved to dead?
    "Countries" are abstract concepts. A country can't "make" anyone do anything. If you're talking about "Government" as in individual elected officials sworn to uphold the constitution, any specific problems in this area? (Bush didn't have any as Gov. of TX when he supported the hospitals right to remove a six week/month (?) old baby's feeding tube against the mothers wishes). The same country that has murdered 46 million unborn children in the last 32 years. Sorry Burger, maybe you've anthropomorphized the US of A into some kind of being, but again, "countries" don't murder unborn children - their mothers do. And I can assuredly guarantee you that many, many Conservative, Fundamentalist, Republican women have had abortions so they could finish college, not disappoint their parents, etc. The only time a "country" can murder folks is in a war. Perhaps you were meaning to write "born" rather than "unborn" innocent children our "country" has "murdered"? Criminals on death row are ineligible of such treatment, so what makes this woman eligible Ummmm, the fact that her brain has been liquified? We would be sorely disappointed if our death row inmates weren't CONSCIOUS as they are strapped down on the gurney. I don't think we sedate them, do we?
    It is evident that the liberal ideology in America, is really about your right to murder other American's, and only limited to those Americans that have not committed any wrong doings.
    Actually, as a liberal I oppose the idea of "America" taking anyone's life. As a "liberal" I reserve the right to decide whether I want life to live or die inside my body. I don't think my fetus is a separate "American" until it's born.
    The two most common elements in American society are hydrogen and stupidity!
    Agreed. Apparently in regars to the latter they're trying Reagan's "Trickle Down" theory.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 11:49:55 AM EST
    Civil rights laws, again, are based on regulating interstate commerce. Civil rights laws are not generally based on the Interstate Commerce Clause, but on, for the most part, the Enforcement Clauses of the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments.
    The 14th Amendment does not add any powers to Congress. If anything, it further restricts Congress.
    Wrong. The 14th Amendment (like the 13th and the 15th) had as its entire purpose restricting the power of the states, and it granted power to Congress to enforce its provisions -- including the Due Process Clause -- for that end in its Enforcement Clause. Now, the courts have ruled correctly that the Enforcement Clause does not give Congress the power to expand the Due Process Clause or other prohbitory clauses to have place greater restrictions on the states than they do on their own, but only enables Congress to establish procedures and remedies for dealing with violations that may occur.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 12:08:53 PM EST
    The more i read here, the more i respect Jehovahs witnesses. At least they are not hypocritical when it comes to care and "god's will". Am I wrong or has science kept her alive? We hear about "miracles" happening every day and the "power of prayer" with terminally ill people, I ask, where is the power of prayer here? Why is their god not healing Ms. Schiavo? Why do christians chalk up "good things" to god and blame whoever they can for "bad things"? Last week I remember several newscasts portraying a woman as a hero and her methods of reading from a book written by a christian author as a "godsend" for preventing more deaths. Where is that big mighty god now? Benny Hinn makes deaf people hear all the time on tv, but irreversible brain damage must be out of his league. Come on prayer warriors settle this for us, pray her right into a miraculous recovery. Just another reason to accept science over mythology.......

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 12:10:10 PM EST
    "Lazarus, come forth......"

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 12:12:48 PM EST
    HELP!!!!! Can anyone tell me what the ammended that's to be argued in Tampa at 6pm is all about? Do the lawyers present briefs or does the judge do it in private without the lawyers AND what do you think the chances are for this to be successful?? Thanks

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#57)
    by roy on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 12:16:41 PM EST
    cmdicely,
    Wrong.
    I stand corrected wrt civil rights laws and the 14th Amendment. I forgot to scroll down and read the whole thing. I still don't see how the 14th justifies Congress's actions in the Schiavo case. Can Congress pass laws requiring federal court review for any Constitutional state obligation? That would be very fishy.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 12:17:05 PM EST
    From Molly Ivins: For your information, while he was governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed the Advanced Directives Act in 1999, which gives hospitals the right to remove life support in cases where there is no possibility of revival, when the family cannot pay, no matter what the family's wishes are in the matter. In Texas, you can only live in a persistent vegetative state if you are accepted in one of the few institutions that provide such care or if your family is both willing and able to take care of you.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#59)
    by Sailor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 12:20:35 PM EST
    "The two most common elements in American society are hydrogen and stupidity!" Actually, this is no more accurate than your other contentions; The lithosphere (earth's crust) contains less than 1% hydrogen, hydrogen gas in the Earth's atmosphere makes up less than one part per million, the mantle has a small amount locked up in crystal compounds and the core has none. Accuracy counts, even in snark.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#60)
    by Sailor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 12:28:31 PM EST
    Jlvngstn, absolutely correct, and last week Texas killed a sick baby over the mother's objections. They also lied about its physical state, and then refused to let witnesses observe him. Where were the right to lifers then? Oh, I forgot, the baby was black.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 12:31:47 PM EST
    It is unfortunate for all involved that the hatred is so intense between the Schindlers and Michael that they could not have come to some compromise agreement on Terri's care years ago.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 12:36:04 PM EST
    That's right Sailor, the most common element would be oxygen and then Silica, of course there is a much higher density of silica in Hollywood but that is another thread.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 12:40:22 PM EST
    Ashley Smith, a 26-year-old widowed mother of one, was held hostage for seven hours by Nichols at her suburban Atlanta home March 12 before he let her go. She then made the 911 call that led to his arrest. "My life is testimony that God can use us even in the midst of tragedy and miracles do happen," she said. from usatoday...

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 12:58:03 PM EST
    Where I lived in LA we called it silicone valley. It was over the mountains and thru the bush;-)

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 01:19:56 PM EST
    Could Hannity be any more of a moron/tool? "Nobel Prize nominee". lol!

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 01:24:05 PM EST
    Kerry didn't "lose." He was DENIED, just like Al Gore. Vote fraud doesn't produce 'wins' at the ballot box. It manufactures 'wins' by cheating and disenfranchizement. 28 states lost their right to recount as a result of a conspiracy by R voting companies and 28 SecStates who betrayed the public.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 01:30:29 PM EST
    Sarcastic...100% right. That is the tragedy, that this ended up in the courts and in Washington DC.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 03:18:42 PM EST
    Mfox @ 12:32pm With all due respect, Merriam-Webster Main Entry: country 2 b : a political state or nation or its territory. Country = nation, this nation and its certain laws only allow the parents to observe their own daughters slow demise by dehydration. That is barbarous for the parents and their daughter. Sailor @ 1:20pm To be accurate, ‘American society’ does not include the lithosphere. It would only include the ‘Americans’ walking on it. Hydrogen is estimated to make up 90 percent of all atoms. Hydrogen is the most abundant of all elements in the universe. Production of hydrogen in the US (America) alone amounts to about 3 billion cubic feet per year.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#69)
    by Sailor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 04:33:40 PM EST
    Yo BurgerBoy, your meat must have been harvested from mad cows. OTOH, you could just be PPJ under a nom de dumb. Like I said, your facts on this were wrong and all your other args suffer from the same. You have zero knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, medicine or politics. By the most convoluted stats, hydrogen makes up less than 10% of the body. It may be the most prevalent (or covalent;-) element in the universe, which still has nothing to do with american society, but that does not have anything to do with your purported point. On a strawman rating out of 100, you get -10. I could almost believe your stupidity argument, because that has always been your experience, but your shrill, willfull ignorance is astounding given the fact that the research that I and many others have done is only a click away. Oh, and BTW,even if "production of hydrogen in the US (America) alone amounts to about 3 billion cubic feet per year" is true, what do you think the oxygen, helium, NITROX, HELIOX, methane production amounts to? Next time you want to bring a knife to a gun fight, you should understand the code duello. Please go back under the bridge and let those of us compos mentis resume our discussion.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#70)
    by roy on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 04:47:32 PM EST
    Oh, and BTW,even if "production of hydrogen in the US (America) alone amounts to about 3 billion cubic feet per year" is true, what do you think the oxygen, helium, NITROX, HELIOX, methane production amounts to?
    Sorry to interrupt a private conversation, but isn't methane 800,000 PPM Hydrogen?

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#71)
    by Sailor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 04:59:46 PM EST
    Roy, you are correct, I slipped that in as a canary for the troll and tipped it off with the co-valent pun. Of course said troll specifically stated 'element' not compound or molecule. Tho I'm sure thru jeezus his bonds are broken;-)

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 06:20:17 PM EST
    "To a believing Christian, death is no big deal." Nino "Fat Tony" Scalia, Opus Dei fellow traveler, and...um, I forget.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 06:48:55 PM EST
    "To a believing Christian, death is no big deal." Nino "Fat Tony" Scalia, Opus Dei fellow traveler, and...um, I forget.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 06:51:41 PM EST
    If Talkleft decides to pull the plug on horse with no name I will get over it.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 06:58:01 PM EST
    deleted for personal insults and name calling. Commenter banned.

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#78)
    by Kitt on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 09:19:09 AM EST
    So the smack boy is outta here, eh? "Posted by: The Horse with no Name on March 24, 2005 06:51 PM deleted for personal insults and name calling. Commenter banned."

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 01:41:59 PM EST
    PPj : The dems should do nothing about the law, bush is the one flip-flopping. Don't try to obfuscate the issue. PPJ : Are you lying or being disingenuous when you say "i heard that it is only for terminal cases" when you called ME a LIAR. Read the act, it is typical of you to make an accusation half-COCKed. 166.039.(a) If an adult qualified patient has not executed or issued a directive and is incompetent or otherwise mentally or physically incapable of communication, the attending physician and the patient's legal guardian or an agent under a medical power of attorney may make a treatment decision that may include a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment from the patient. (b) If the patient does not have a legal guardian or an agent under a medical power of attorney, the attending physician and one person, if available, from one of the following categories, in the following priority, may make a treatment decision that may include a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment:

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 01:44:43 PM EST
    Did god put that feeding tube in her or did a doctor? Christians hate and I mean hate when us non christians ask them to let god solve their problems and are equally as upset when they want us to allow god to solve our problems. Come on Robertson, Hinn, Graham, Falwell show us the impotent god powers...

    Re: Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief (none / 0) (#81)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 09:38:35 PM EST
    JL - I was stating what I have heard. That is hardly a lie. If you can refute it, fine with me. BTW - Again, on memory, my memory says the law was in regards to infants. Your copies denote adults. Now go ahead and attack me for making a qualified statement. You must give the weatherman hell for repeating time and again, "There is a possibility of rain...if the front... winds out of the north, probably shifting to the east... BTW - For a non-christian you seem to think you know alot about christians. For example, christians are clearly commanded to help themselves, along with prayer for guidance.

    Supreme Court Denies Schiavo Relief | 75 comments (75 topical)