View Full Version : So, we are comfortable with Judges making life and death decisions?
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 09:54 PM
When there is no clear written living will, and when there is conflict between the testimony of "family members" over what the wishes of the "comotose" are???
Just wonderin'? :hmmm:
Garcia Bronco
03-23-2005, 09:59 PM
yes....
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 10:03 PM
yes....
Fair enough; I appreciate the direct answer.
I'm confident too....in THIS case, from "what I know."
But I'm wondering about as a "general rule" which surely this precedent may influence.... :hmmm:
alnorth
03-23-2005, 10:04 PM
I sure as hell hope so, because that has been the law of the land since our nation's birth.
... when there is conflict between the testimony of "family members" over what the wishes of the "comotose" are???
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that there isn't any conflict over "what the wishes of the 'comotose' are", because
1) Her husband says she said she didn't want to be kept on life support, and
2) Her parents are NOT saying that she didn't say those things to her husband
3) They are saying they don't believe she would say something like that.
I mean, they aren't claiming to have witnessed the conversation in question or anything are they? They just don't (or don't want to) believe what the husband is saying. Right?
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 10:08 PM
I sure as hell hope so, because that has been the law of the land since our nation's birth.
Really? That's sure is interesting....considering legislatures make law, and the over-whelming majority of those laws give family members, not judges final say. And if there is "conflict" between family members, the majority of those laws, currently, err in favor of life.
I guess now, we allow judges to err in favor of death? Is that what you are saying?
Just trying to be clear. :hmmm:
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 10:10 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that there isn't any conflict over "what the wishes of the 'comotose' are", because
1) Her husband says she said she didn't want to be kept on life support, and
2) Her parents are NOT saying that she didn't say those things to her husband
3) They are saying they don't believe she would say something like that.
I mean, they aren't claiming to have witnessed the conversation in question or anything are they? They just don't (or don't want to) believe what the husband is saying. Right?
MY understanding is her wishes were not clear; and, further, that her husband didn't recall "HER" wishes until 1998, interestingly...seven years AFTER having been comatose.
I could be wrong, but that's what I'm hearing. :shrug:
Really? That's sure is interesting....considering legislatures make law, and the over-whelming majority of those laws give family members, not judges final say. And if there is "conflict" between family members, the majority of those laws, currently, err in favor of life.
I guess now, we allow judges to err in favor of death? Is that what you are saying?
Just trying to be clear. :hmmm:
Except if you live anywhere that Bush or the Republican party Governs, then you and your family are stuck being subject to whatever political wind is blowing dollars into their campaign coffers.
In favor of life today... in favor of death over the objection of the family if they can't make payments properly back in the day.
stevieray
03-23-2005, 10:11 PM
I sure as hell hope so, because that has been the law of the land since our nation's birth.
You need to read the book Men in Black.
MY understanding is her wishes were not clear; and, further, that her husband didn't recall "HER" wishes until 1998, interestingly...seven years AFTER having been comatose.
I could be wrong, but that's what I'm hearing. :shrug:
I don't know, but that doesn't answer any of my questions at all. You just shot up some flares hoping a non-answer would be sufficient distration?
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 10:12 PM
Except if you live anywhere that Bush or the Republican party Governs, then you and your family are stuck being subject to whatever political wind is blowing dollars into their campaign coffers.
In favor of life today... in favor of death over the objection of the family if they can't make payments properly back in the day.
Yeah, Repubs are the only party that play that card?
Remember a boy named Elian Gonzalez? :hmmm:
:rolleyes:
Yeah, Repubs are the only party that play that card?
Remember a boy named Elian Gonzalez? :hmmm:
:rolleyes:
Clinton signed a law allowing hostpitals to "kill" elian gozalez if he couldn't afford his hosptial bills? And then tried to claim that he believes in a "culture of life" when it's politically expediant?
alnorth
03-23-2005, 10:15 PM
This may just be semantics, but just to be clear, this isnt a case of the husband saying "she should die", or the family saying "she should live", or the judge deciding if she should live or die.
The point is we all have the right to refuse medical care and be allowed to die. Ideally, it would be nice if we could say so ourselves. If thats not possible, then we must determine that person's wish. Living wills are nice, but young people often dont have them, since they are in the prime of health and dont forsee the immediate need.
So then we must determine what that person wanted, similar to criminal trial where we determine if someone committed a crime. According to our laws and traditions, your spouse's opinion on what you wanted, the person you chose as your life partner, is given weight above everyone else, followed by family and close friends. If you dont like it, either dont get married, or create a living will. (even then family and spouses often try to get the courts to ignore your living will.)
If there is a dispute over what a person wants, we do not simply default to life. The parents had ample opportunity to argue, re-argue, and argue a third time every single point they had to try to prove that Terry wanted to live.
The courts sided with her life partner and several of her friends who all said Terry would not want to live. Therefore, the court is ordering her feeding tube removed, not because they decided it would be the best thing to do, but because they have decided that it was Terri's wish.
This is not a brand new freak case, this happens hundreds of times a year, and I am completely comfortable with it. We have no better method to address this issue.
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 10:16 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that there isn't any conflict over "what the wishes of the 'comotose' are", because
1) Her husband says she said she didn't want to be kept on life support, and
2) Her parents are NOT saying that she didn't say those things to her husband
3) They are saying they don't believe she would say something like that.
I mean, they aren't claiming to have witnessed the conversation in question or anything are they? They just don't (or don't want to) believe what the husband is saying. Right?
Her husbands recollection is tardy, and it's in dispute.
I DO believe her parents reject that they understood that to be her wishes. I've SAID lots of goofy shit....like shoot me when if I get fat--fortunately my wife didn't take me literally.
HER wishes are difinitely in dispute; that's what the whole case is about...unfortunately for her parents, the law favors the husband--even though his "memory" of her wishes came 8 years into this episode.
WHY SHOULD THEY BELIEVE the husband, given his clear ulterior motive? :shrug:
alnorth
03-23-2005, 10:17 PM
MY understanding is her wishes were not clear; and, further, that her husband didn't recall "HER" wishes until 1998, interestingly...seven years AFTER having been comatose.
For many years, Michael and her doctors held out hope for a recovery. When the diagnosis of PVS became undeniable with the destruction of Terri's cerebral cortex, thats when this sad decision was forced upon them.
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 10:17 PM
Clinton signed a law allowing hostpitals to "kill" elian gozalez if he couldn't afford his hosptial bills? And then tried to claim that he believes in a "culture of life" when it's politically expediant?
No, Clinton's administration manipulated a politically charged incident for political gain--like Bush is now, it could be argued.
alnorth
03-23-2005, 10:20 PM
Her husbands recollection is tardy, and it's in dispute.
Its not tardy, his recollection was irrelevant untill they made the determination that the necessary pre-conditions for Terri's final wish was met. ie they still thought she could recover.
Just because it was in dispute doesnt mean you must then side with life. You need to examine the facts of the case to determine what the evidence shows Terri's wishes to be. Over the course of several years an enormous number of judges have ruled and reaffirmed Terri's wish to die.
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 10:22 PM
...This is not a brand new freak case, this happens hundreds of times a year, and I am completely comfortable with it. We have no better method to address this issue.
I agree with most of your post of which the preceding is a part.
However, what deciding in favor of death doesn't happen too often, and it's precisely why this case is inflamatory. People who are following the case closely understand the implications and the precedent...DOES open the door to more and more of these kinds of decisions.
I don't have the numbers, nor am I inclined to battle your research and numbers with mine....however, I'm quite comfortable saying that the overwhelming number of cases similar to this one are decided IN FAVOR of life. This case could change that.
That's what everyone is so wound up about, IMO.
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 10:23 PM
Its not tardy, his recollection was irrelevant untill they made the determination that the necessary pre-conditions for Terri's final wish was met. ie they still thought she could recover.
Just because it was in dispute doesnt mean you must then side with life. You need to examine the facts of the case to determine what the evidence shows Terri's wishes to be. Over the course of several years an enormous number of judges have ruled and reaffirmed Terri's wish to die.
His sudden memory of her wishes seven years INTO this, doesn't bother you in the least? :hmmm:
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 10:25 PM
You need to read the book Men in Black.
That, or Star Chamber....or simply an objective view of early American history. :shake:
His sudden memory of her wishes seven years INTO this, doesn't bother you in the least? :hmmm:
What makes you think it's a "sudden memory". That part you are just making up.
alnorth
03-23-2005, 10:29 PM
His sudden memory of her wishes seven years INTO this, doesn't bother you in the least? :hmmm:
He didnt suddenly remember it 7 years later, he likely had it in mind from the beginning, but untill hope was lost, then he wasnt going to stop trying. Terri didnt allegedly say that she didnt want artificial life, period. She allegedly said that if she wouldnt be able to recover, then she wouldnt want to spend the rest of her days tied to a machine. As soon as they determine that she would never recover, then Terri's wish finally became relevant.
alnorth
03-23-2005, 10:29 PM
I agree with most of your post of which the preceding is a part.
However, what deciding in favor of death doesn't happen too often, and it's precisely why this case is inflamatory. People who are following the case closely understand the implications and the precedent...DOES open the door to more and more of these kinds of decisions.
I don't have the numbers, nor am I inclined to battle your research and numbers with mine....however, I'm quite comfortable saying that the overwhelming number of cases similar to this one are decided IN FAVOR of life. This case could change that.
That's what everyone is so wound up about, IMO.
Fair enough, maybe we are not in as much of a conflict as I thought when I first read your post. For all I know, you could be right, I'll look into it.
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 10:29 PM
What makes you think it's a "sudden memory". That part you are just making up.
Not at all; that's precisely what other family members and "friends" are arguing.
They may be lying, I suppose; but that's the case as I've read it: FIND me evidence/proof he raised this argument BEFORE the 1998 'revelation' and I'll gladly withdraw that point. Seriously.
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 10:33 PM
...he likely had it in mind from the beginning, but untill hope was lost....
With whom did he raise this point BEFORE 1998? Seriously. I don't know. I'm asking. :shrug:
I'm not trying to be difficult, it just seems damn odd that his public "revelation" of her wishes coincided with his NEW relationship.... :hmmm:
No, Clinton's administration manipulated a politically charged incident for political gain--like Bush is now, it could be argued.
What exactly did clinton do to "manipulate" that situation for political gain? He went and pissed off one of the largest block of minority voters in Florida by shipping the kid back to Cuba. You think he was fishing for votes?
You've GOT to be joking!
There is nothing defnensible about what the Republicans are doing and in particular what Bush is doing on this issue.
Not even the "they do bad things too!" defense will work on this one.
Your entire party has sold their entire belief system down the river in exchange for an opportunity to secure support from Radical Religous types in the 2006 election, at the expense of the constitution and in direct contrast to a situation he oversaw in Texas.
I can't believe how blind partisan some Republican's are being on this issue. Those tax cut payoffs sure do work wonders. You can pull any kinda crap you want and some people will defend every assinine, hypcritical, immoral, indefensible thing you do.
go bowe
03-23-2005, 10:35 PM
Really? That's sure is interesting....considering legislatures make law, and the over-whelming majority of those laws give family members, not judges final say. And if there is "conflict" between family members, the majority of those laws, currently, err in favor of life.
I guess now, we allow judges to err in favor of death? Is that what you are saying?
Just trying to be clear. :hmmm:legislatures make statutes, one form of law under our system...
judges make decisions applying the law to particular cases, which is a judicial function and always has been under the common law, which is another form of law under our system...
i know you don't like judges and courts, but who would make decisions about individual cases? the congress?
they wouldn't have time to do anything else if the legislative branch got into the business of deciding individual cases...
oh wait, congress has already gotten into the business of trying to decide individual cases in this schaivo controversy...
imo, it sets a bad precedent...
fwiw, i think you're mischaracterizing the law regarding erring in favor of life (or death), at least in the state of florida...
i don't think the law in florida errs in favor or either one...
the law in florida, as i understand it, is that where there is no written direction from the individual, their wishes are determined by clear and convincing evidence one way or the other, with the testimony of the spouse as to conversations being clear and convincing evidence in florida...
the judge only decided that the husband's testimony regarding terri's wishes was clear and convincing evidence, as defined under florida law...
the judge didn't err either way, he just followed the law in florida (florida statutory law, florida common law, and florida constitutional law - all three forms of law)...
and the florida appeals court, the florida supreme court, the federal district court and now the federal appeals court have all agreed...
if you don't like the law, contact your representatives in the legislature and congress, but don't blame judges for applying the law just because you don't like the outcome and claiming that the judges are "making law" because in the schaivo case, they clearly are not doing any such thing...
finally, i just don't believe your statement that the majority of laws err on the side of life, when in fact the law regarding a person's decision to terminate treatment and how that decision is proven and implemented is virtually the same in every state, so far as i know...
even if it wasn't already the same, the curan decision made it the law of the land, pretty much...
what laws are you referring to, anyway? can you cite a single state statute that requires that treatment be continued even when the patient has verbally expressed his desire not to receive treatment under such circumstances, simply because there is a conflict in the evidence as to the person's wishes?
if so, any relative could frustrate a person's clearly expressed desire not to be treated simply by claiming that the person had expressed a different desire to them...
i just don't believe that is the law in any state in america...
i guess i have to call :BS:...
Not at all; that's precisely what other family members and "friends" are arguing.
They may be lying, I suppose; but that's the case as I've read it: FIND me evidence/proof he raised this argument BEFORE the 1998 'revelation' and I'll gladly withdraw that point. Seriously.
You aren't arguing that he didn't raise it before, you are arguing that he just made it up 7 years later.
You just made that claim up entirely.
Not making a legal claim on the event is NOT the same thing as "sudden memory" of an event.
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 10:37 PM
What exactly did clinton do to "manipulate" that situation for political gain? He went and pissed off one of the largest block of minority voters in Florida by shipping the kid back to Cuba. You think he was fishing for votes?
You've GOT to be joking!
There is nothing defnensible about what the Republicans are doing and in particular what Bush is doing on this issue.
Not even the "they do bad things too!" defense will work on this one.
Your entire party has sold their entire belief system down the river in exchange for an opportunity to secure support from Radical Religous types in the 2006 election, at the expense of the constitution and in direct contrast to a situation he oversaw in Texas.
I can't believe how blind partisan some Republican's are being on this issue. Those tax cut payoffs sure do work wonders. You can pull any kinda crap you want and some people will defend every assinine, hypcritical, immoral, indefensible thing you do.
I'll remind you, I'm a blue-dog Democrat, voted for straight ticket Dems EXCEPT the top two spots on the ballot in 2004....
If you don't think Clinton politically manipulated the whole Gonzalez incident with the way Janet Reno handled it, there is no compromising for us....and we'll have to move on, I guess.
My only point, really was....this shouldn't be at all surprising; BOTH sides engage in this kind of political demagoguery. I'm not saying I like it--but I'm a realist.
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 10:43 PM
legislatures make statutes, one form of law under our system...
judges make decisions applying the law to particular cases, which is a judicial function and always has been under the common law, which is another form of law under our system...
i know you don't like judges and courts, but who would make decisions about individual cases? the congress?
they wouldn't have time to do anything else if the legislative branch got into the business of deciding individual cases...
oh wait, congress has already gotten into the business of trying to decide individual cases in this schaivo controversy...
imo, it sets a bad precedent...
fwiw, i think you're mischaracterizing the law regarding erring in favor of life (or death), at least in the state of florida...
i don't think the law in florida errs in favor or either one...
the law in florida, as i understand it, is that where there is no written direction from the individual, their wishes are determined by clear and convincing evidence one way or the other, with the testimony of the spouse as to conversations being clear and convincing evidence in florida...
the judge only decided that the husband's testimony regarding terri's wishes was clear and convincing evidence, as defined under florida law...
the judge didn't err either way, he just followed the law in florida (florida statutory law, florida common law, and florida constitutional law - all three forms of law)...
and the florida appeals court, the florida supreme court, the federal district court and now the federal appeals court have all agreed...
if you don't like the law, contact your representatives in the legislature and congress, but don't blame judges for applying the law just because you don't like the outcome and claiming that the judges are "making law" because in the schaivo case, they clearly are not doing any such thing...
finally, i just don't believe your statement that the majority of laws err on the side of life, when in fact the law regarding a person's decision to terminate treatment and how that decision is proven and implemented is virtually the same in every state, so far as i know...
even if it wasn't already the same, the curan decision made it the law of the land, pretty much...
what laws are you referring to, anyway? can you cite a single state statute that requires that treatment be continued even when the patient has verbally expressed his desire not to receive treatment under such circumstances, simply because there is a conflict in the evidence as to the person's wishes?
if so, any relative could frustrate a person's clearly expressed desire not to be treated simply by claiming that the person had expressed a different desire to them...
i just don't believe that is the law in any state in america...
i guess i have to call :BS:...
We just need to stop arguing over this; it's really getting old...
Bottom-line is that I'm a strict-constructionist--a 'restraintist,' I'm interested in original intent, and I respect Federalism and don't harbor contempt for the Tenth amendment. You OTOH seem to be much more of a loose-constuctionist--an 'activist,' you are more interested in the 'Living Nature' of the Constitution, you don't think much of Federalism and you seem to want to dismiss the Tenth Amendment.
That's fine, John; that's cool. I have NOOOOOOO problem with that. However, don't attempt to frame a philosophical and political disagreement over the proper role of the Judiciary as a black and white issue. It is clearly not. It remains one of the "grayest" of legal discussions that one can engage in.
go bowe
03-23-2005, 10:44 PM
This may just be semantics, but just to be clear, this isnt a case of the husband saying "she should die", or the family saying "she should live", or the judge deciding if she should live or die.
The point is we all have the right to refuse medical care and be allowed to die. Ideally, it would be nice if we could say so ourselves. If thats not possible, then we must determine that person's wish. Living wills are nice, but young people often dont have them, since they are in the prime of health and dont forsee the immediate need.
So then we must determine what that person wanted, similar to criminal trial where we determine if someone committed a crime. According to our laws and traditions, your spouse's opinion on what you wanted, the person you chose as your life partner, is given weight above everyone else, followed by family and close friends. If you dont like it, either dont get married, or create a living will. (even then family and spouses often try to get the courts to ignore your living will.)
If there is a dispute over what a person wants, we do not simply default to life. The parents had ample opportunity to argue, re-argue, and argue a third time every single point they had to try to prove that Terry wanted to live.
The courts sided with her life partner and several of her friends who all said Terry would not want to live. Therefore, the court is ordering her feeding tube removed, not because they decided it would be the best thing to do, but because they have decided that it was Terri's wish.
This is not a brand new freak case, this happens hundreds of times a year, and I am completely comfortable with it. We have no better method to address this issue.yeah, what he said... :thumb:
the only thing i'd quibble with is i'm not so sure that spouses are given greater weight over other family members, although that may be the case in some jurisdictions (i don't know for sure)...
i think it's the weight of all the evidence on the issue of the patient's wishes, regardless of where that evidence comes from...
as you say, in this case you have the husband's testimony as to what terri said about it and the corroboration from her friends...
given all the evidence, including the contentions of the parents, the judge decided that terri had expressed a desire not to be kept alive under such circumstances...
so, in essence, it was terri that had the "final say", not the husband and not the judge...
I'll remind you, I'm a blue-dog Democrat, voted for straight ticket Dems EXCEPT the top two spots on the ballot in 2004....
If you don't think Clinton politically manipulated the whole Gonzalez incident with the way Janet Reno handled it, there is no compromising for us....and we'll have to move on, I guess.
My only point, really was....this shouldn't be at all surprising; BOTH sides engage in this kind of political demagoguery. I'm not saying I like it--but I'm a realist.
You aren't a realist if you are trying to deflect criticsm of Bush by comparing Republicans surrendering their long-professed belief system in exchange for political votes ... to a Democrat who chose to do the very worst thing he could possibly have done pollitically by sending Ellian Gonzalez back to Cuba.
That comparison is so assinine in it merits, so baseless in it's fact, so blindly partisan in it's foundation I can't believe it.
You've totally surrendered any objectity in politics if this is your way of thinking. Hell, even life-long Republicans aren't defending this crap from this administration. They are openly critical of the entire fiasco.
go bowe
03-23-2005, 10:48 PM
For many years, Michael and her doctors held out hope for a recovery. When the diagnosis of PVS became undeniable with the destruction of Terri's cerebral cortex, thats when this sad decision was forced upon them.hey! cut that out...
you're not supposed to counter spurious assertions with facts that make sense...
after all, mr. k has a perfectly good (if misguided) rant going, don't mess it up with pesky facts... :p :p :p
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 10:50 PM
..., so far as i know...even if it wasn't already the same, the curan decision made it the law of the land, pretty much.....
My understanding is that STATE laws in most states defer to "life"....in instances where the intentions of the "comatose" are unclear or not IN WRITING....this case would seem to change that.
NOW, judges may determine the "intent" of the comatose....even when that intent is clearly in dispute.
go bowe
03-23-2005, 10:51 PM
I agree with most of your post of which the preceding is a part.
However, what deciding in favor of death doesn't happen too often, and it's precisely why this case is inflamatory. People who are following the case closely understand the implications and the precedent...DOES open the door to more and more of these kinds of decisions.
I don't have the numbers, nor am I inclined to battle your research and numbers with mine....however, I'm quite comfortable saying that the overwhelming number of cases similar to this one are decided IN FAVOR of life. This case could change that.
That's what everyone is so wound up about, IMO.heh, heh...
and i'm quite comfortable saying that i'm very suave and witty, but it doesn't make it true...
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 10:58 PM
.... comparing Republicans surrendering their long-professed belief system in exchange for political votes ...
Man, you are a true...."hater."
Republican parties's "professed belief system"--you obviously don't follow things closely.
YES; they are federalists on a majority of matters. However, they adhere to the Classical Conservative notion of government coercion of "virtue."
You may find that "hypocritical," but that merely exposes your ignorance of modern conservatism. Abortion, abstinence, and opposition to gay marriage all speak to their commitment to government establishment of "virtue."
Our party prefers government activism on matters of financial and monetary concerns; as well, as "civil rights"---a;though some would argue that was opportunistic demagoguery to regain political footing in the 1950s. :hmmm:
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 11:00 PM
heh, heh...
and i'm quite comfortable saying that i'm very suave and witty, but it doesn't make it true...
I'm so sorry I'm not as wise as the almighty go bo.... :wayne:
:rolleyes:
Man, you are a true...."hater."
Republican parties's "professed belief system"--you obviously don't follow things closely.
YES; they are federalists on a majority of matters. However, they adhere to the Classical Conservative notion of government coercion of "virtue."
You may find that "hypocritical," but that merely exposes your ignorance of modern conservatism. Abortion, abstinence, and opposition to gay marriage all speak to their commitment to government establishment of "virtue."
Our party prefers government activism on matters of financial and monetary concerns; as well, as "civil rights"---a;though some would argue that was opportunistic demagoguery to regain political footing in the 1950s. :hmmm:
When Bush was in Texas, and was signing laws that gave hospitals the right to pull out a feeding tube over the objection of the family if the family couldn't afford the hosptial bills, what "virtue" was he (and the Republican congress that wrote/passed the bill) operating on?
Come on, man.
Seriously.
BIG_DADDY
03-23-2005, 11:04 PM
Everyone should have to fill out a contract for life once they hit 16. I would never want to be left to be a veg the rest of my life. I also think other things should have mandatory contracts as well like marriage. Anything to take power away from the courts and attorneys. Our legal system has truly become a scary behemoth.
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 11:06 PM
Everyone should have to fill out a contract for life once they hit 16. I would never want to be left to be a veg the rest of my life. I also think other things should have mandatory contracts as well like marriage. Anything to take power away from the courts and attorneys. Our legal system has truly become a scary behemoth.
Yep. I could live with YOUR solution. :thumb:
go bowe
03-23-2005, 11:07 PM
We just need to stop arguing over this; it's really getting old...
Bottom-line is that I'm a strict-constructionist--a 'restraintist,' I'm interested in original intent, and I respect Federalism and don't harbor contempt for the Tenth amendment. You OTOH seem to be much more of a loose-constuctionist--an 'activist,' you are more interested in the 'Living Nature' of the Constitution, you don't think much of Federalism and you seem to want to dismiss the Tenth Amendment.
That's fine, John; that's cool. I have NOOOOOOO problem with that. However, don't attempt to frame a philosophical and political disagreement over the proper role of the Judiciary as a black and white issue. It is clearly not. It remains one of the "grayest" of legal discussions that one can engage in.but that's the problem...
you're misconstruing this case as somehow a function of the proper role of the judiciary...
it's not that at all...
it's a case of following the law in florida, as expressed in the florida constitution, the florida statutory provisions, and prior decisons of the florida courts... there is no "loose construction" going on here - indeed, it's a matter of strict interpretation of existing florida law...
it's a case of weighing evidence and then deciding whether or not the evidence as a whole establishes what the wishes of the patient were regarding treatment under such circumstances, that's what the judge did and that has nothing to do with the proper role of the judiciary in terms of constructionism or any other such happy horseshit...
btw, you haven't named one single state with a statute that "errs on the side of life" and you won't, will you?
you can try to slide away from the absurdity of your unsupported claims by turning this into a discussion of the "proper role of the judiciary" if you want, but that doesn't make your baseless claims of what the law is any less absurd...
absurd, i say... :D
as absurd as trying to characterize me as someone who "harbors contempt" for the tenth amendment...
or raising the spectre of federalism...
ohn that issue, it seems to me that those who are pushing this issue are doing a pretty good job of undermining federalism with their federal intrusion into what is a matter of state law, which has been duly addressed by the courts of that state...
absurd, absurd i say...
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 11:07 PM
When Bush was in Texas, and was signing laws that gave hospitals the right to pull out a feeding tube over the objection of the family if the family couldn't afford the hosptial bills, what "virtue" was he (and the Republican congress that wrote/passed the bill) operating on?
Come on, man.
Seriously.
If what you say is true, I'd agree there is certainly hypocrisy in that. No doubt about it.
go bowe
03-23-2005, 11:14 PM
My understanding is that STATE laws in most states defer to "life"....in instances where the intentions of the "comatose" are unclear or not IN WRITING....this case would seem to change that.
NOW, judges may determine the "intent" of the comatose....even when that intent is clearly in dispute.:BS:
name one state whose law defers to life, as you put it...
just one, and then i'll look it up to see...
this case changes nothing about the law, it is a routine issue that is handled in much the same way countless times each year in every state...
name one state, just one, that has a statute which provides that where the intentions of the patient are in dispute, or as you would say, unclear, that the court must decide to continue treatment (defer to life) and disregard the wishes of the person involved...
just one...
If what you say is true, I'd agree there is certainly hypocrisy in that. No doubt about it.
It's a fact.
And it's not merely hypocricy.
It's poltical opportunism before your very eyes.
At one moment when pandering to big-donor corporate hospitals...
At another moment pandering to big-donor, big-voting religous zealots...
It's everything the Bush administration (and in particular Karl Rove) stands for all wrapped up into the most crystal clear, indefensible, unambigous example of the disgusting priority of politics over principle you could want.
This whole fiasco should be a wakeup call to all those blind sheep who have been following the Republican party down this path of Republican omnipotence ("permanant Republican majority").
All those Freepers around here who campaigned that "the problem with Democrats is that they don't stand for anything... at least the Republicans stand for SOMETHING (even if its wrong)!" ... jesus, don't you guys look feel like idiots today!?!
Revisit the actions taken by this administration over the past 4+ years in this light. It's a frightening sight to behold.
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 11:16 PM
...
you're misconstruing this case as somehow a function of the proper role of the judiciary....it's a case of following the law in florida, as expressed in the florida constitution, the florida statutory provisions, and prior decisons of the florida courts... there is no "loose construction" going on here - indeed, it's a matter of strict interpretation of existing florida law...
it's a case of weighing evidence and then deciding whether or not the evidence as a whole establishes what the wishes of the patient were regarding treatment under such circumstances, that's what the judge did and that has nothing to do with the proper role of the judiciary in terms of constructionism or any other such happy horseshit.........
You are entitled to your opinion on that matter; I'd disagree, and argue it is YOU who is miscontruing the proper role of the courts...
...
btw, you haven't named one single state with a statute that "errs on the side of life" and you won't, will you?
...
South Dakota, for one....REQUIRES "written" or "clearly expressed and undisputed" evidence of the wishes of the comatose before the line is pulled. According to the local news, MOST small/conservative/red states have similar laws...but, no, I haven't researched it to see if their claims are correct. They DO MAKE SENSE, to me...as a resident of such a state though. :shrug:
As for the claim of absurdity, I'd expect that of a proponent of judicial activism and the omniscient and omnipotent wisdom of judges. :rolleyes:
Whatever you say, John. :shake:
el borracho
03-23-2005, 11:16 PM
I would be OK with pulling the life support on comatose persons who lack a valid living will stating that they wish to receive life support indefinitely. Of course we would have to define some realistic length of time before pulling the plug. Two years sounds reasonable to me. No recovery in two years and no living will which requests indefinite support? Sorry.
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 11:17 PM
It's a fact.
And it's not merely hypocricy.
It's poltical expedience before your very eyes.
At one moment when pandering to big-donor corporate hospitals...
At another moment pandering to big-donor, big-voting religous zealots...
It's everything the Bush administration (and in particular Karl Rove) stands for all wrapped up into the most crystal clear, indefensible, unambigous example of the disgusting priority of politics over principle you could want.
This whole fiasco should be a wakeup call to all those blind sheep who have been following the Republican party down this path of Republican omnipotence ("permanant Republican majority").
Revisit the actions taken by this administration over the past 4+ years in this light. It's a frightening sight to behold.
LINK....for the "facts" you allege? :shrug:
go bowe
03-23-2005, 11:18 PM
. . .NOW, judges may determine the "intent" of the comatose....even when that intent is clearly in dispute.sorry, more :BS:...
judges have always made a determination as to such matters...
it's not some recent phenomenon, as you seem to suggest...
courts have always had to resolve conflicts in evidence, this is the nature of the judicial process under the common law...
it's just amazing how you can make all this shit up with a straight face...
amazing, i say...
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 11:19 PM
go bo: SOUTH Fuggin' Dakota :rolleyes:
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 11:21 PM
sorry, more :BS:...
judges have always made a determination as to such matters...
it's not some recent phenomenon, as you seem to suggest...
courts have always had to resolve conflicts in evidence, this is the nature of the judicial process under the common law...
it's just amazing how you can make all this shit up with a straight face...
amazing, i say...
What's more amazing to me, is the arrogance of a Yale Lawyer....turning a reasonable debate over interpretation of law, Constitutional provisions, and judicial activism into a black and white issue.
I hope your blinders are comfortable; they sure seem to be immovable.
go bowe
03-23-2005, 11:23 PM
I'm so sorry I'm not as wise as the almighty go bo.... :wayne:
:rolleyes:ah c'mon, petulance doesn't look good on you...
and it's not a matter of wisdom, it's a matter of being well-informed and understanding how our legal system really works instead of trying to invent crap that suits your political ideas...
:BS:, i say...
LINK....for the "facts" you allege? :shrug:
Search: bush signed law texas
... in Google... just about every single news and web link is about this story... how you can be following this case so closely and have no idea what I'm refering to is a testament to that "liberal" media stirring up a firestorm in order to embarass the President.... or not.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002215324_texaslaw22.html
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 11:27 PM
ah c'mon, petulance doesn't look good on you...
It's too late, and it's a school night so gettin' drunk and continuing this argument is not an option....so you'll have to settle for petulance. :harumph:
:p
go bowe
03-23-2005, 11:27 PM
Everyone should have to fill out a contract for life once they hit 16. I would never want to be left to be a veg the rest of my life. I also think other things should have mandatory contracts as well like marriage. Anything to take power away from the courts and attorneys. Our legal system has truly become a scary behemoth.a behemoth indeed...
i totally agree that everybody should have a written directive, but lots of people never do it...
and you are absolutely right that anything that takes power away from attorneys is a good thing...
i heard on tv recently that there are more people in law school right now than there are lawyers...
even if that's not completely accurtate, it is nevertheless true that there are way too many lawyers and way too much lawyering going on, and it's only gonna get worse... :(
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 11:30 PM
... how you can be following this case so closely and have no idea what I'm refering to is a testament to that "liberal" media stirring up a firestorm in order to embarass the President.... or not.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002215324_texaslaw22.html
I haven't been following the case that closely; I only know what I've read in the last 4-5 days.....sincel last Friday. What I've articulated just seems like common sense to me; err in favor of life, unless there is CLEAR intent from the comatose of a DNR. Is that really asking too much? :shrug:
Liberal media is a reasonable explanation though, heh.... :p
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 11:31 PM
....it is nevertheless true that there are way too many lawyers and way too much lawyering going on, and it's only gonna get worse... :(
On that note, we will AGREE.... :thumb:
FTR, I just heard Fox News Radio play a clip of Terri Shiavo's sister (one of the ones fighting to keep her on life support) admitting that Terri may have said she she didn't want to be kept on life support, but her sister SPECULATED
"I don't THINK" (paraphrase) she was talking about a feeding tube. She was refering to a breathing tube.
Obviously FoxNews was trying to spin the quote into a case for why Terri's wishes weren't really her wishes... it clearly shows this woman admitting to speculation about her sisters actual wishes.
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 11:39 PM
FTR, I just heard Fox News Radio play a clip of Terri Shiavo's sister (one of the ones fighting to keep her on life support) admitting that Terri may have said she she didn't want to be kept on life support, but her sister SPECULATED
"I don't THINK" (paraphrase) she was talking about a feeding tube. She was refering to a breathing tube.
Obviously FoxNews was trying to spin the quote into a case for why Terri's wishes weren't really her wishes... it clearly shows this woman admitting to speculation about her sisters actual wishes.
So? What's this proove? :shrug:
The question I ask, once again....if there is ANY doubt as to the wishes of the person in question, WHY should we choose death? :(
I haven't been following the case that closely; I only know what I've read in the last 4-5 days.....sincel last Friday. What I've articulated just seems like common sense to me; err in favor of life, unless there is CLEAR intent from the comatose of a DNR. Is that really asking too much? :shrug:
Liberal media is a reasonable explanation though, heh.... :p
I don't have a problem with a ruling that requires a written statement from the patient. None at all.
My problem is that this case, this family and this issue is being absued by the Republican party and exploited purely for political advantage. It's an embarassment to the entire party how arrogant this Congress and this President have become.
RINGLEADER once predicted that we didn't really have to worry about an overzealous Republican party (even if they did succeed in gaining control of all facets of government), because they would get greedy with power and collapse under their own egos.
The collapse has begun.
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 11:42 PM
...My problem is that this case, this family and this issue is being absued by the Republican party and exploited purely for political advantage. It's an embarassment to the entire party how arrogant this Congress and this President have become....
Will you, at the very least concede that as the OPINION it is, rather than the fact you wish to present it as??? :rolleyes:
BIG_DADDY
03-23-2005, 11:43 PM
Give her a lethal injection already, her parents need to think about somebody besides themselves. I can't believe how big of a deal the media is making out of this case. Her parents should spend the rest of theirs lives paying everybody else off for what they have put them through.
So? What's this proove? :shrug:
The question I ask, once again....if there is ANY doubt as to the wishes of the person in question, WHY should we choose death? :(
It proves that
1) Terri's family isn't even claiming to have heard her wishes... but that they are merely speculating about her wishes.
You claim that those wishes are in doubt, but this shows that the only "doubt" is ADMITTED speculation about her wishes.
Every court from the first to the last have all agreed that the facts and the evidence all show that Micheal's portayal of her wishes was indeed her wishes.
You (and the anti-abortion movement pushing this issue) saying it's "in doubt" doesn't make it so.
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 11:45 PM
Give her a lethal injection already, her parents need to think about somebody besides themselves already. I can't believe how big of a deal the media is making out of this case. Her parents should spend the rest of theirs lives paying everybody else off for what they have put them through.
How about the hubby? Should HE thing of somebody beside himself?
Her parents are simply asking for her to continue as she has for 15 years; why is it anyone else's business? Including her hubby who can't seem to see her die quickly enough? :shrug:
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 11:47 PM
...You (and the anti-abortion movement pushing this issue) saying it's "in doubt" doesn't make it so.
And you and others, including her husband....insisting she "would want" to die, doesn't make it so either. :)
Will you, at the very least concede that as the OPINION it is, rather than the fact you wish to present it as??? :rolleyes:
"It" being "political exploitation"?
That's a verifiable observation and the opinion of the vast majority of all Americans.
There can never be a "fact" about someone's (or a group of people's) motivations. But your attempt to presume there can be, and that this case is nothing more than mere opinion is yet another attempt at deflecting what is indeflectable criticism of the Republican party and the Bush administration.
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 11:49 PM
"It" being "political exploitation"?
That's a verifiable observation and the opinion of the vast majority of all Americans.
There can never be a "fact" about someone's (or a group of people's) motivations. But your attempt to presume there can be, and that this case is nothing more than mere opinion is yet another attempt at deflecting what is indeflectable criticism of the Republican party and the Bush administration.
You are really off the deep-end, Jason. :shake:
You need to step back from Politics for a few months....years. You've lost all perspective. :shake:
And you and others, including her husband....insisting she "would want" to die, doesn't make it so either. :)
One of the members of the family fighting to keep her on life support admits that they don't "know", they admit that they speculate as to her intentions.
Her husband doesn't say that he speculates (just differently). He says he knows. And there are at least 2 other people (Terri's friends) who corroberate his description of her stated position.
The mom/dad/sister make no such claims, and have no such supporting corroberation to their non-existant claims.
You are really off the deep-end, Jason. :shake:
You need to step back from Politics for a few months....years. You've lost all perspective. :shake:
So says the man going down in Barry Bonds like flames as he attempt so defend and deflect away any and all critism of a corupt party who he claims he doesn't belong to.
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 11:53 PM
...it is opinion of the vast majority of all Americans.
.
You really are delusional, aren't you?
You mean the same majority that re-elected the man by 3 million plus votes a short time ago....
Your polling data on this "fact" would be where? :rolleyes:
Good night, Jason....sweet drea....er, eh...nightmares, Jason. :p
go bowe
03-23-2005, 11:55 PM
You are entitled to your opinion on that matter; I'd disagree, and argue it is YOU who is miscontruing the proper role of the courts...
South Dakota, for one....REQUIRES "written" or "clearly expressed and undisputed" evidence of the wishes of the comatose before the line is pulled. According to the local news, MOST small/conservative/red states have similar laws...but, no, I haven't researched it to see if their claims are correct. They DO MAKE SENSE, to me...as a resident of such a state though. :shrug:
As for the claim of absurdity, I'd expect that of a proponent of judicial activism and the omniscient and omnipotent wisdom of judges. :rolleyes:
Whatever you say, John. :shake:it's too late to do a full search, but a quick peek found this: 34-12D-17. Revocation of or failure to execute declaration--No presumption created concerning intent. This chapter creates no presumption concerning the intention of an individual who has revoked or has not executed a declaration with respect to the use, withdrawal, or withholding of life-sustaining treatment in the event of a terminal condition.
Source: SL 1991, ch 273, § 16.
this seems to indicate that the failure to execute a living will regarding treatment issues does not create a presumption one way or the other...
i couldn't find any statute (in a very quick search) that bears on the issue of how to handle the situation where there is conflicting evidence regarding a verbal declaration...
were you referring to a news article, or do you have some reference to a statutory provison on the matter?
or is it *gasp* a matter of judicial case law in south dakota?
i don't have ready access to south dakota court decisions...
if i have time tommorrow, i might try to do some further research into south dakota law on the subject...
You really are delusional, aren't you?
You mean the same majority that re-elected the man by 3 million plus votes a short time ago....
Your polling data on this "fact" would be where? :rolleyes:
Jesus dude... you really need to start forming your beliefs on facts, rather than blind ideology. You've somehow formed all these beliefs about this case and these issues without having any information about what's going on.
A couple links...
A primer:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/22/194615/400
The poll:
http://pollingreport.com/images/ABCschiavo2.GIF
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 11:58 PM
it's too late to do a full search, but a quick peek found this: this seems to indicate that the failure to execute a living will regarding treatment issues does not create a presumption one way or the other...
i couldn't find any statute (in a very quick search) that bears on the issue of how to handle the situation where there is conflicting evidence regarding a verbal declaration...
were you referring to a news article, or do you have some reference to a statutory provison on the matter?
or is it *gasp* a matter of judicial case law in south dakota?
i don't have ready access to south dakota court decisions...
if i have time tommorrow, i might try to do some further research into south dakota law on the subject...
Feel free to do as you please; my statements are from the representation of South Dakota state law.....as represented by the local broadcast media. I haven't researched it, but since it's not been questioned, challenged, or corrected I'm assuming their representation of it is reasonable. :shrug:
And yes... I"m off to bed.
I hope you get some rest... you must be exhausted after digging holes all night.
:p
Mr. Kotter
03-23-2005, 11:59 PM
Jesus dude... you really need to start forming your beliefs on facts, rather than blind ideology. You've somehow formed all these beliefs about this case and these issues without having any information about what's going on.
A couple links...
A primer:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/22/194615/400
The poll:
http://pollingreport.com/images/ABCschiavo2.GIF
THAT'S 'conclusive,' isn't it? :rolleyes:
Good night, Jason. Good night, John.
THAT'S 'conclusive,' isn't it? :rolleyes:
Good night, Jason. Good night, John.
It's surely shows a vast majority. Not exactly within the margin of error, ya know.
el borracho
03-24-2005, 12:01 AM
The question I ask, once again....if there is ANY doubt as to the wishes of the person in question, WHY should we choose death? :(
Because it is a pointless, collosal waste of time and resources to maintain a shell.
go bowe
03-24-2005, 12:04 AM
. . .South Dakota, for one....REQUIRES "written" or "clearly expressed and undisputed" evidence of the wishes of the comatose before the line is pulled. . .hmmmmm...
i found a south dakota statute that specifically addresses withholding of treatment (including nutrition) and seems to say that the standard, in the absence of a written declaration is "clear and convincing evidence", not "clearly expressed and undisputed" evidence...
Withdrawal of Artificial Nutrition or Hydration (§ 59-7-2.7) . . . Artificial nutrition or hydration may be withheld or withdrawn if:
. . . There is clear and convincing evidence that artificial nutrition or hydration was refused by the person prior to loss of decisional capacity; or the power of attorney directs that artificial nutrition or hydration not be given or specifically authorizes an attorney-in-fact or agent to make that decision; or prior to the loss of decisional capacity there is clear and convincing evidence that the principal expressed the desire that artificial nutrition or hydration not be given. clear and convincing evidence regarding the expression of the "principal" (the sick person)...that's the same standard used under florida and as far as i know, it's the standard used by nearly every state...
i may be missing something, but that statute seems pretty clear...
it just does NOT require "undisputed" evidence...
is there some other statute or case law in south dakota that overrules this statute?
where did you get this notion that undisputed evidence is needed, when the south dakota statute that applies says something else?
again, i have to call :BS:...
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 12:04 AM
It's surely shows a vast majority. Not exactly within the margin of error, ya know.
One poll; a snap shot in time....if it were to sustain itself over the next few months, you'd have a point. :hmmm:
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 12:08 AM
hmmmmm...
i may be missing something, but that statute seems pretty clear...
and it does not require "undisputed" evidence...
is there some other statute or case law in south dakota that overrules this statute?
where did you get this notion that undisputed evidence is needed, when the south dakota statute that applies says something else?
again, i have to call :BS:...
From what I'm hearing in the media, the CASE law....you seem so fond of....in practice this law has come place the burden of proof on those who wish to WITHDRAW hydration....I'm paraphrasing from the 10 pm News.... :hmmm:
go bowe
03-24-2005, 12:08 AM
go bo: SOUTH Fuggin' Dakota :rolleyes:mr. k, south fuggin dakota!!
the statute just doesn't say what you claim...
sorry...
WilliamTheIrish
03-24-2005, 12:08 AM
Who the hell is Jason?
go bowe
03-24-2005, 12:09 AM
What's more amazing to me, is the arrogance of a Yale Lawyer....turning a reasonable debate over interpretation of law, Constitutional provisions, and judicial activism into a black and white issue.
I hope your blinders are comfortable; they sure seem to be immovable.more :BS:...
your claims are still absurd... :D
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 12:09 AM
mr. k, south fuggin dakota!!
the statute just doesn't say what you claim...
sorry...
Case law....damned judges, you know...heh. How ironic is this? ROFL
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 12:10 AM
Who the hell is Jason?
jAZ.....er, sorry....guess it's Justin....isn't it? I ALWAYS get he and DC mixed up....Justin, Jason....er, eh....sorry. :banghead:
go bowe
03-24-2005, 12:12 AM
What's more amazing to me, is the arrogance of a Yale Lawyer....turning a reasonable debate over interpretation of law, Constitutional provisions, and judicial activism into a black and white issue.
I hope your blinders are comfortable; they sure seem to be immovable.how 'bout the arrogance of some dipshit making false claims about the law, and making up shit as he goes?
your assertions, as usual, are full of shit, and you can try turning this into a personal pissing match, but that doesn't change the fact that you like to make shit up and try to pass it off as fact when it just isn't true...
more :BS:...
Earthling
03-24-2005, 12:14 AM
Just some quick observations:
Why not just ask Teri if she wants to remain on the feeding tube?..Haven't her parents, siblings, nurse, and some Doctors said that she is definitely aware of things in her room when they come in.? It would be easy to do....."Teri, if you want to remain on this feeding tube then indicate yes to us by blinking 5 times rapidly"
Apparently the Pope has said to "put the tube back in!" However, now there is some speculation on whether or not he meant the tube in his own throat.
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 12:15 AM
how 'bout the arrogance of some dipshit making false claims about the law, and making up shit as he goes?
your assertions, as usual, are full of shit, and you can try turning this into a personal pissing match, but that doesn't change the fact that you like to make shit up and try to pass it off as fact when it just isn't true...
more :BS:...
So, you are NOW taking the postion....once again, there is no disagreement over the PROPER role of the judiciary? That there is not substantive difference between strict constructionist and loose constructionist views of law and the role of judges? If you insist I'm FOS, THAT is what you are saying....no matter how loudly and how often you try to dispute it. :rolleyes:
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 12:17 AM
Just some quick observations:
Why not just ask Teri if she wants to remain on the feeding tube?..Haven't her parents, siblings, nurse, and some Doctors said that she is definitely aware of things in her room when they come in.? It would be easy to do....."Teri, if you want to remain on this feeding tube then indicate yes to us by blinking 5 times rapidly"
Apparently the Pope has said to "put the tube back in!" However, now there is some speculation on whether or not he meant the tube in his own throat.
Let's hope your relatives are equally indifferent should you ever arrive in the state she is.... :rolleyes:
go bowe
03-24-2005, 12:19 AM
Case law....damned judges, you know...heh. How ironic is this? ROFLthat's funny...
unless the statute were ruled unconstitutional, it would control over any case law to the contrary...
and the language of the statute is pretty clear...
it's not "undisputed" evidence, just clear and convincing...
i don't believe that there is any case law in south dakota that requires undisputed evidence in order to withhold nutrition...
whatever the news media may have said, and they might have made an honest mistake or perhaps you didn't understand what they said, but the south fuggin dakota statute seems pretty clear to me...
sorry, more :BS: ...
go bowe
03-24-2005, 12:26 AM
So, you are NOW taking the postion....once again, there is no disagreement over the PROPER role of the judiciary? That there is not substantive difference between strict constructionist and loose constructionist views of law and the role of judges? If you insist I'm FOS, THAT is what you are saying....no matter how loudly and how often you try to dispute it. :rolleyes:no, you're the one saying that south dakota requires "undisputed" evidence, when the controlling statute doesn't say that at all...
you're the one who wants to turn this into a discussion of the proper role of the judiciary, which has absolutely nothing to do with what the law in south dakota actually is...
and it's your precious legislature, and NOT some judge, that made that law...
tee hee...
what i'm saying is that you make shit up and when someone takes the time to disprove your spurious claims, you try to turn the conversation to something else...
you said, not me, you said that south dakota requires undisputed evidence as to the patient's wishes regarding continued treatment...
and i'm saying that you are full of shit regarding the law of south dakota, or in other words, more :BS: ...
Earthling
03-24-2005, 12:26 AM
Let's hope your relatives are equally indifferent should you ever arrive in the state she is.... :rolleyes:
I would seriously want them to pull the plug, tube, or whatever on me if I ever reached that point...Wouldn't you?
WilliamTheIrish
03-24-2005, 12:30 AM
If Mills Lane were here he'd have stopped this contest before go bo put SD on a respirator.
What a beat down.
go bowe
03-24-2005, 12:32 AM
I would seriously want them to pull the plug, tube, or whatever on me if I ever reached that point...Wouldn't you?but but, according to mr. k, there must be UNDISPUTED evidence of your desire to have the plug pulled unless you have made a living will or designated an attorney in fact...
so, if you're in the deep do-do in south dakota, you better hope that some cousin doesn't decide it's morally wrong to pull the plug and disputes what you have specifically said about withdrawing treatment...
because, according to mr. k, the law in south dakota wouldn't permit pulling the plug if somebody, anybody, disputed your expressed intentions...
seems a little far-fetched somehow, doesn't it?
go bowe
03-24-2005, 12:34 AM
If Mills Lane were here he'd have stopped this contest before go bo put SD on a respirator.
What a beat down.i'm sorry, i didn't mean to monopolize this thread, but i get so tired of mr. k's ridiculous claims, claims that he never seems to be able to back up when he's called on it...
i must be getting old and crotchety or something...
i mean, what's a little bullshit here and there?
Earthling
03-24-2005, 12:47 AM
but but, according to mr. k, there must be UNDISPUTED evidence of your desire to have the plug pulled unless you have made a living will or designated an attorney in fact...
so, if you're in the deep do-do in south dakota, you better hope that some cousin doesn't decide it's morally wrong to pull the plug and disputes what you have specifically said about withdrawing treatment...
because, according to mr. k, the law in south dakota wouldn't permit pulling the plug if somebody, anybody, disputed your expressed intentions...
seems a little far-fetched somehow, doesn't it?
I guess what should be done is that people who "Do Not Want" the plugged pulled should be the ones forced to shell out the bucks for the lawyers and the living wills. I am thinking of doing a 'poor mans' version and running an add in my local newspaper expressing my desire not to live by artificial means..It would always be there in the newspapers archives and could be easily retrieved...if needed.
patteeu
03-24-2005, 01:40 AM
Yes, judges make life and death decisions all the time. And yes, I'm comfortable with it in this case too.
I'm far more comfortable with that than I am with people who want to keep retrying the case until they get the result they want.
patteeu
03-24-2005, 01:43 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that there isn't any conflict over "what the wishes of the 'comotose' are", because
1) Her husband says she said she didn't want to be kept on life support, and
2) Her parents are NOT saying that she didn't say those things to her husband
3) They are saying they don't believe she would say something like that.
I mean, they aren't claiming to have witnessed the conversation in question or anything are they? They just don't (or don't want to) believe what the husband is saying. Right?
There's a little more to it than that. The mother also testifed to having a conversation in which TS said they ought to leave Karen Quinlan alone (i.e. on life support)... when TS was 12 years old. Not very compelling if you ask me.
patteeu
03-24-2005, 01:54 AM
Her husbands recollection is tardy, and it's in dispute.
I DO believe her parents reject that they understood that to be her wishes. I've SAID lots of goofy shit....like shoot me when if I get fat--fortunately my wife didn't take me literally.
HER wishes are difinitely in dispute; that's what the whole case is about...unfortunately for her parents, the law favors the husband--even though his "memory" of her wishes came 8 years into this episode.
WHY SHOULD THEY BELIEVE the husband, given his clear ulterior motive? :shrug:
The judge specifically mentioned that both parties have potential financial conflicts of interest in this case. The parents became estranged from the husband when he refused to share his $300K "loss of companionship" award with them. Her parents stood to become TS's legal heirs if they could convince the husband to agree to a divorce before TS died. And that's just the potential financial ulterior motives. What about the potential ulterior motives of the parents who might just want to sit by their child's bedside and talk to her as if she can hear them or stroke her living flesh or comb her hair like she was going out somewhere? What about the potential ulterior motive related to the religious views of the parents leading them into denial about her wishes because of their belief that such a desire wouldn't serve her well on judgement day? I don't fault the parents if they just can't let go, but it's just as possible that they want to keep her alive for selfish or religious reasons as it is that they want to keep her around based on their honest understanding of her wishes.
patteeu
03-24-2005, 02:03 AM
With whom did he raise this point BEFORE 1998? Seriously. I don't know. I'm asking. :shrug:
I'm not trying to be difficult, it just seems damn odd that his public "revelation" of her wishes coincided with his NEW relationship.... :hmmm:
I don't typically go around sharing the fact that my wife has informed me on many occasions that she wouldn't want to be kept alive if there was no hope for recovery. One of the reasons I don't do that is because she isn't in that condition. It's perfectly reasonable that as the husband was working hard toward getting her the best possible care during the first 7 or so years, he didn't think it was important to get his conversation with TS on the record.
I'm not sure you have your facts straight about when his new relationship started, but you should be aware that correlation does not equal causation. It's possible that finding someone new caused him to change his mind wrt keeping his wife alive, but isn't it also possible that when he finally decided that all hope for recovery was lost, he started paying more attention to other women and getting on with his life (as I would want my spouse to do)?
patteeu
03-24-2005, 02:11 AM
We just need to stop arguing over this; it's really getting old...
Bottom-line is that I'm a strict-constructionist--a 'restraintist,' I'm interested in original intent, and I respect Federalism and don't harbor contempt for the Tenth amendment. You OTOH seem to be much more of a loose-constuctionist--an 'activist,' you are more interested in the 'Living Nature' of the Constitution, you don't think much of Federalism and you seem to want to dismiss the Tenth Amendment.
That's fine, John; that's cool. I have NOOOOOOO problem with that. However, don't attempt to frame a philosophical and political disagreement over the proper role of the Judiciary as a black and white issue. It is clearly not. It remains one of the "grayest" of legal discussions that one can engage in.
This is not an activist decision. The largest part of the dispute has to do with a finding of fact (or 2 if you want to count the PVS issue), not a ruling of law. The florida court did not creatively interpret their statute or the constitution. This is more like the OJ trial (from the perspective of the critics in both cases) than it is like Roe v. Wade. Nobody came up with a trimester scheme out of the blue. Nobody found a heretofore unidentified or marginally identified right in any penumbra. This isn't activism.
patteeu
03-24-2005, 02:16 AM
yeah, what he said... :thumb:
the only thing i'd quibble with is i'm not so sure that spouses are given greater weight over other family members, although that may be the case in some jurisdictions (i don't know for sure)...
i think it's the weight of all the evidence on the issue of the patient's wishes, regardless of where that evidence comes from...
as you say, in this case you have the husband's testimony as to what terri said about it and the corroboration from her friends...
given all the evidence, including the contentions of the parents, the judge decided that terri had expressed a desire not to be kept alive under such circumstances...
so, in essence, it was terri that had the "final say", not the husband and not the judge...
This is my understanding as well. The mother and a friend testified to statements TS made wrt the Quinlan case and the husband, his brother, and his sister-in-law testified to statements she made to them indicating that she would not want to be "hooked up" to life sustaining machinery in the event that recovery was hopeless. The judge noted that the Quinlan case took place when TS was 12 and found the husband's side to be credible despite potential conflicts of interest on both sides. IMO, he called it like he saw it. A different judge may have called it differently.
DenverChief
03-24-2005, 03:20 AM
Apparently the Pope has said to "put the tube back in!" However, now there is some speculation on whether or not he meant the tube in his own throat.
ROFL thats fugin rep!
the Talking Can
03-24-2005, 05:03 AM
Because it is a pointless, collosal waste of time and resources to maintain a shell.
not mention sadly ironic in a country where health care is considered a luxury of the wealthy...we have 10's of millions of people without health care but now all of a sudden the health-care-equals-socialism crowd is screaming to high heavan about how patients deserve the best care blah blah blah....we're quite content to let kids rot without even basic health care, but Frist/Delay et al want us to spare no expense to maintain the lives of every literally brain dead patient in the country for 20-30 years...because clearly people want to live 20 years with their brains turned off and bodies frozen and muscles atrophied and tubes sticking out of every hole in their body while machines plugged into the wall pump "quality of life" into the bed sore ridden husk of a human...yes, this is so clearly about the patient and not about families that can't let go even when their love has become cruel or politicians who'd pose for photo op's with corpses if they thought it would please their sicko fundamentalist base glued to the tv at home watching the drama unfold with popcorn and diet pepsi and real "quality of life" high definition digital cable illuminating the inside of their tastefully bland ranch style homes with spooky blue light and Geraldo Rivera dressed as a male nurse sneaking into the hospital so Fukx news gets the scoop when he asks the exoskeleton is she happy so many people out there are praying for her, and using her name for honest purposes like fund raising for the Rapture which is soon to come we just need to redistrict Georgia to pick up a couple of more seats and then Jesus himself will descend from the great vending machine in the sky and re-inflate you like a white water raft, or a balloon, or a flat tire...hello, can you hear me?...banging his microphone on her head and saying don't you know who I am? I'm Geraldo ****ing Rivera and you'll answer me when I ask you a question you lump, this is live tv and I need a 1.3 rating to keep my job and my 3rd wife's hideous boob job intact...god, why does this always happen to me, it is all so unfair....I could've been Patrick O'Brien at least he gets to lick ^&%** and beat off on beautiful faces...
trndobrd
03-24-2005, 05:26 AM
not mention sadly ironic in a country where health care is considered a luxury of the wealthy...we have 10's of millions of people without health care but now all of a sudden the health-care-equals-socialism crowd is screaming to high heavan about how patients deserve the best care blah blah blah....we're quite content to let kids rot without even basic health care, but Frist/Delay et al want us to spare no expense to maintain the lives of every literally brain dead patient in the country for 20-30 years...because clearly people want to live 20 years with their brains turned off and bodies frozen and muscles atrophied and tubes sticking out of every hole in their body while machines plugged into the wall pump "quality of life" into the bed sore ridden husk of a human...yes, this is so clearly about the patient and not about families that can't let go even when their love has become cruel or politicians who'd pose for photo op's with corpses if they thought it would please their sicko fundamentalist base glued to the tv at home watching the drama unfold with popcorn and diet pepsi and real "quality of life" high definition digital cable illuminating the inside of their tastefully bland ranch style homes with spooky blue light and Geraldo Rivera dressed as a male nurse sneaking into the hospital so Fukx news gets the scoop when he asks the exoskeleton is she happy so many people out there are praying for her, and using her name for honest purposes like fund raising for the Rapture which is soon to come we just need to redistrict Georgia to pick up a couple of more seats and then Jesus himself will descend from the great vending machine in the sky and re-inflate you like a white water raft, or a balloon, or a flat tire...hello, can you hear me?...banging his microphone on her head and saying don't you know who I am? I'm Geraldo ****ing Rivera and you'll answer me when I ask you a question you lump, this is live tv and I need a 1.3 rating to keep my job and my 3rd wife's hideous boob job intact...god, why does this always happen to me, it is all so unfair....I could've been Patrick O'Brien at least he gets to lick ^&%** and beat off on beautiful faces...
get yourself worked up much?
Amnorix
03-24-2005, 05:41 AM
Judges make decisions based on the law. The law in the Florida favors the spouse in these matters. The parents, who Florida does NOT favor in these matters, opposed the action.
It's not like they went to the judge to decide whatever HE or SHE wanted. The judge ruled based on the facts and the law.
What's tough about this, really?
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 06:32 AM
The judge specifically mentioned that both parties have potential financial conflicts of interest in this case. The parents became estranged from the husband when he refused to share his $300K "loss of companionship" award with them. Her parents stood to become TS's legal heirs if they could convince the husband to agree to a divorce before TS died. And that's just the potential financial ulterior motives. What about the potential ulterior motives of the parents who might just want to sit by their child's bedside and talk to her as if she can hear them or stroke her living flesh or comb her hair like she was going out somewhere? What about the potential ulterior motive related to the religious views of the parents leading them into denial about her wishes because of their belief that such a desire wouldn't serve her well on judgement day? I don't fault the parents if they just can't let go, but it's just as possible that they want to keep her alive for selfish or religious reasons as it is that they want to keep her around based on their honest understanding of her wishes.
Sure, what you say is possible....but the husband's behavior in this seems more suspect to me. JMHO.
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 06:34 AM
I don't typically go around sharing the fact that my wife has informed me on many occasions that she wouldn't want to be kept alive if there was no hope for recovery. One of the reasons I don't do that is because she isn't in that condition. It's perfectly reasonable that as the husband was working hard toward getting her the best possible care during the first 7 or so years, he didn't think it was important to get his conversation with TS on the record.
I'm not sure you have your facts straight about when his new relationship started, but you should be aware that correlation does not equal causation. It's possible that finding someone new caused him to change his mind wrt keeping his wife alive, but isn't it also possible that when he finally decided that all hope for recovery was lost, he started paying more attention to other women and getting on with his life (as I would want my spouse to do)?
I would not dispute anything you are saying, other than to say the evidence appears contradictory.....at best.
Your interpretation is reasonable; but so is the interpretation of those who question HIS motives...
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 06:36 AM
...The florida court did not creatively interpret their statute or the constitution. ... This isn't activism.
I'm not SURE they have either; but there are a large number of more informed and intelligent people in this debate who DO seem to think that is the case....
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 06:39 AM
not mention sadly ironic in a country where health care is considered a luxury of the wealthy...we have 10's of millions of people without health care but now all of a sudden the health-care-equals-socialism crowd is screaming to high heavan about how patients deserve the best care blah blah blah....we're quite content to let kids rot without even basic health care, but Frist/Delay et al want us to spare no expense to maintain the lives of every literally brain dead patient in the country for 20-30 years...because clearly people want to live 20 years with their brains turned off and bodies frozen and muscles atrophied and tubes sticking out of every hole in their body while machines plugged into the wall pump "quality of life" into the bed sore ridden husk of a human...yes, this is so clearly about the patient and not about families that can't let go even when their love has become cruel or politicians who'd pose for photo op's with corpses if they thought it would please their sicko fundamentalist base glued to the tv at home watching the drama unfold with popcorn and diet pepsi and real "quality of life" high definition digital cable illuminating the inside of their tastefully bland ranch style homes with spooky blue light and Geraldo Rivera dressed as a male nurse sneaking into the hospital so Fukx news gets the scoop when he asks the exoskeleton is she happy so many people out there are praying for her, and using her name for honest purposes like fund raising for the Rapture which is soon to come we just need to redistrict Georgia to pick up a couple of more seats and then Jesus himself will descend from the great vending machine in the sky and re-inflate you like a white water raft, or a balloon, or a flat tire...hello, can you hear me?...banging his microphone on her head and saying don't you know who I am? I'm Geraldo ****ing Rivera and you'll answer me when I ask you a question you lump, this is live tv and I need a 1.3 rating to keep my job and my 3rd wife's hideous boob job intact...god, why does this always happen to me, it is all so unfair....I could've been Patrick O'Brien at least he gets to lick ^&%** and beat off on beautiful faces...
:eek:
Now THAT'S a rant.... ROFL
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 06:42 AM
... The judge ruled based on the facts and the law.
What's tough about this, really?
Facts are in question; and the laws appear, according to some, to be anything but clear....and certainly subject to interpretation.
In situations of life and death, some of us are comfortable with ambiguity; others are less comfortable. :shrug:
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 06:48 AM
...it's not "undisputed" evidence, just clear and convincing...i don't believe that there is any case law in south dakota that requires undisputed evidence in order to withhold nutrition... ...
I didn't realize you have access to SD Television and Radio feeds in MO. :hmmm:
The legal standard for "clear and convincing" in this state is not as easily met (according to the reporting going on right now) as you are trying to suggest.
The standard is subject to interpretation, which according to the lawyers they are interviewing locally, is much more rigorous than what you are suggesting. "Clear and convincing," in this case seems more akin to the legal standard of, say, reasonable doubt as opposed to a preponderence of evidence standard.
Of course, I'm sure you are probably more familiar with SD law than they are.
Amnorix
03-24-2005, 07:11 AM
I didn't realize you have access to SD Television and Radio feeds in MO. :hmmm:
The legal standard for "clear and convincing" in this state is not as easily met (according to the reporting going on right now) as you are trying to suggest.
The standard is subject to interpretation, which according to the lawyers they are interviewing locally, is much more rigorous than what you are suggesting. "Clear and convincing," in this case seems more akin to the legal standard of, say, reasonable doubt as opposed to a preponderence of evidence standard.
Of course, I'm sure you are probably more familiar with SD law than they are.
The three standards -- preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing and beyond a reasonable doubt are universal in the United States, and not special to South Dakota.
Preponderance of evidence means more likely than not. Basically, you can think of it as 50.0000001% or more likely to be true (although lawyers and judges stay away from assigning percentages to this stuff like the plague, I think it's the easiest way to explain that one).
Beyond a reasonable doubt means just that -- beyond a reasonable doubt. Not beyond any doubt, just a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is sometimes described as an articulable doubt -- one that you can say/describe that seems to make sense.
Clear and convincing is harder to prove than a preponderance, but not as hard as a reasonable doubt. It can't be described as more than what it says "clear and convincing". The fact-finder makes the determination of whether it's clear and convincing.
Please note that these matters relate to the findings of fact that the fact-finder (be it judge or jury) must make in any particular case. The rulings of LAW are made by the judge, and are not subject to these kinds of thresholds. The judge just decides the law, which is subject to review on appeal.
Amnorix
03-24-2005, 07:13 AM
Oh, and further to my last post, the standard "clear and convicing" would NOT require "undisputed" evidence. That isn't the standard. Heck, that's not even the standard for criminal trials. Undisputed essentially means 100% certain. 100% certainty is NEVER required.
Amnorix
03-24-2005, 07:16 AM
Facts are in question; and the laws appear, according to some, to be anything but clear....and certainly subject to interpretation.
In situations of life and death, some of us are comfortable with ambiguity; others are less comfortable. :shrug:
You are apparently under the amazingly absurd notion that justice or the legal system seeks "certainty".
Certainty almost never exists. People argue about facts and new issues that the law has never dealt with, or even thought of before, come up. And yet, decisions must be made. Someone must win and someone must lose in any case brought to trial. Certainty is never required, and 99% of the time, not possible in any event.
bkkcoh
03-24-2005, 07:30 AM
Facts are in question; and the laws appear, according to some, to be anything but clear....and certainly subject to interpretation.
In situations of life and death, some of us are comfortable with ambiguity; others are less comfortable. :shrug:
That is one thing that is really odd to me is the vagueness of most laws. It seems as if there isn't a concensus of the politicians to agree on specifics and this causes a great deal of gray area in the law and thus makes it subject to interpretation. Part of this problem is caused by the wheeling and dealing done in order to bill passed. Another issue is the laws will be determined to be unconstitution because of being to specific or over stepping the bounds. (:hmmm: doesn't that sound familar)
Amnorix
03-24-2005, 07:32 AM
That is one thing that is really odd to me is the vagueness of most laws. It seems as if there isn't a concensus of the politicians to agree on specifics and this causes a great deal of gray area in the law and thus makes it subject to interpretation. Part of this problem is caused by the wheeling and dealing done in order to bill passed. Another issue is the laws will be determined to be unconstitution because of being to specific or over stepping the bounds. (:hmmm: doesn't that sound familar)
It's just reality. You can't draft a law to cover EVERY situation. There are too many possibilities. The legislature draws the outline of the policy, and then it's left to the courts to figure out how that law applies to any given situation.
Who the hell is Jason?
jAZ.....er, sorry....guess it's Justin....isn't it? I ALWAYS get he and DC mixed up....Justin, Jason....er, eh....sorry. :banghead:
ROFL
Don't worry, you aren't alone. As far as I know, you are the only one here who calls me Jason, but with a name like Justin, I've learned to just go with it and I have basically adopted the name Jason as well.
;)
not mention sadly ironic in a country where health care is considered a luxury of the wealthy...we have 10's of millions of people without health care but now all of a sudden the health-care-equals-socialism crowd is screaming to high heavan about how patients deserve the best care blah blah blah....we're quite content to let kids rot without even basic health care, but Frist/Delay et al want us to spare no expense to maintain the lives of every literally brain dead patient in the country for 20-30 years...because clearly people want to live 20 years with their brains turned off and bodies frozen and muscles atrophied and tubes sticking out of every hole in their body while machines plugged into the wall pump "quality of life" into the bed sore ridden husk of a human...yes, this is so clearly about the patient and not about families that can't let go even when their love has become cruel or politicians who'd pose for photo op's with corpses if they thought it would please their sicko fundamentalist base glued to the tv at home watching the drama unfold with popcorn and diet pepsi and real "quality of life" high definition digital cable illuminating the inside of their tastefully bland ranch style homes with spooky blue light and Geraldo Rivera dressed as a male nurse sneaking into the hospital so Fukx news gets the scoop when he asks the exoskeleton is she happy so many people out there are praying for her, and using her name for honest purposes like fund raising for the Rapture which is soon to come we just need to redistrict Georgia to pick up a couple of more seats and then Jesus himself will descend from the great vending machine in the sky and re-inflate you like a white water raft, or a balloon, or a flat tire...hello, can you hear me?...banging his microphone on her head and saying don't you know who I am? I'm Geraldo ****ing Rivera and you'll answer me when I ask you a question you lump, this is live tv and I need a 1.3 rating to keep my job and my 3rd wife's hideous boob job intact...god, why does this always happen to me, it is all so unfair....I could've been Patrick O'Brien at least he gets to lick ^&%** and beat off on beautiful faces...
ROFL
Nicely done.
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 08:04 AM
The three standards -- preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing and beyond a reasonable doubt are universal in the United States, and not special to South Dakota.
Preponderance of evidence means more likely than not. Basically, you can think of it as 50.0000001% or more likely to be true (although lawyers and judges stay away from assigning percentages to this stuff like the plague, I think it's the easiest way to explain that one).
Beyond a reasonable doubt means just that -- beyond a reasonable doubt. Not beyond any doubt, just a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is sometimes described as an articulable doubt -- one that you can say/describe that seems to make sense.
Clear and convincing is harder to prove than a preponderance, but not as hard as a reasonable doubt. It can't be described as more than what it says "clear and convincing". The fact-finder makes the determination of whether it's clear and convincing.
Please note that these matters relate to the findings of fact that the fact-finder (be it judge or jury) must make in any particular case. The rulings of LAW are made by the judge, and are not subject to these kinds of thresholds. The judge just decides the law, which is subject to review on appeal.
Thanks for the lesson. It certainly helps sort some of this debate out. :thumb:
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 08:08 AM
You are apparently under the amazingly absurd notion that justice or the legal system seeks "certainty".
Certainty almost never exists. People argue about facts and new issues that the law has never dealt with, or even thought of before, come up. And yet, decisions must be made. Someone must win and someone must lose in any case brought to trial. Certainty is never required, and 99% of the time, not possible in any event.
No, I understand your point. I was just careless in my language...I apologize for that; there just appears to be a reasonable amount of uncertainty in this case--at least according to many folks. Many others certainly disagree.
Amnorix
03-24-2005, 08:16 AM
No, I understand your point. I was just careless in my language...I apologize for that; there just appears to be a reasonable amount of uncertainty in this case--at least according to many folks. Many others certainly disagree.
And I apologize for being a lawyer. Once we start getting into a debate about what the law requires, I'm unfortunately been brainwashed/trained into not letting sloppy language slip by without comment. :)
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 08:28 AM
And I apologize for being a lawyer. Once we start getting into a debate about what the law requires, I'm unfortunately been brainwashed/trained into not letting sloppy language slip by without comment. :)
No need for you to apologize. Your contributions have clarified things somewhat in my mind. Earlier posters had tried to convey your point, but their efforts seemed to lack the language and clarity I was able to discern from yours.
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 08:32 AM
It's just reality. You can't draft a law to cover EVERY situation. There are too many possibilities. The legislature draws the outline of the policy, and then it's left to the courts to figure out how that law applies to any given situation.
Some laws seem excessively vague, almost as if by design though; and some judges seem almost enthusiastic about creatively interpreting laws in "new" ways.
While certainly individual circumstances make application of law in particular situations difficult, "loose interpretation" certainly has a downside for many of us.
|Zach|
03-24-2005, 08:37 AM
I just gave this thread a quick browse and it got me thinking. Even if I didn't know the two people involved and even if I had no idea what was being debated.
When one person is citing actual law as their evidence and another is paraphrasing a local evening news cast. You have to think one person is putting out better info than the other.
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 08:43 AM
I just gave this thread a quick browse and it got me thinking. Even if I didn't know the two people involved and even if I had no idea what was being debated.
When one person is citing actual law as their evidence and another is paraphrasing a local evening news cast. You have to think one person is putting out better info than the other.
Cute, Zach; "better" info depends on context and circumstance, doesn't it?
Let's see......law in a book, on-line, without context or case law and precedent to give context, versus in-person, "live," analysis from legal experts in THAT state on that state's laws. :hmmm:
I guess the local lawyers showin' up on TV are just FOS--which, FTR, I'd usually agree with. :p
|Zach|
03-24-2005, 08:45 AM
Cute, Zach; "better" info depends on context and circumstance, doesn't it?
Let's see......law in a book, on-line, without context or state law precedent to give context, versus in-person, "live," analysis from legal experts in THAT state on that state's laws. :hmmm:
I guess the local lawyers showin' up on TV are just FOS--which, FTR, I'd usually agree with. :p
The paraphrasing part was the best IMO. Just made me laugh thats all. I am gonna go check the news tonight to get the latest on the MJ case...previews and recaps of reality television...and the lotto ticket numbers. Catch ya on the flipside.
Amnorix
03-24-2005, 08:47 AM
Some laws seem excessively vague, almost as if by design though; and some judges seem almost enthusiastic about creatively interpreting laws in "new" ways.
While certainly individual circumstances make application of law in particular situations difficult, "loose interpretation" certainly has a downside for many of us.
If a law is so vague that people can't reasonably interpret what they even mean to figure out what is/isn't allowed, a judge has the authority to declare the law "void for vagueness". It is relatively rare that this happens, as you can imagine.
trndobrd
03-24-2005, 09:17 AM
If a law is so vague that people can't reasonably interpret what they even mean to figure out what is/isn't allowed, a judge has the authority to declare the law "void for vagueness". It is relatively rare that this happens, as you can imagine.
Of course they don't. Not when they can craft decisions based on a rock solid foundation of "legislative intent", "equity" or "clear and uncontroverted case law". :)
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 09:21 AM
Of course they don't. Not when they can craft decisions based on a rock solid foundation of "legislative intent", "equity" or "clear and uncontroverted case law". :)
Loose constructionist/judicial activist "cornicupia," eh? :drool:
trndobrd
03-24-2005, 09:27 AM
Loose constructionist/judicial activist "cornicupia," eh? :drool:
For some. A lot of laws are just plain old poorly written.
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 09:30 AM
For some. A lot of laws are just plain old poorly written.
No argument about that.
Amnorix
03-24-2005, 09:54 AM
For some. A lot of laws are just plain old poorly written.
You're not kidding.
trndobrd
03-24-2005, 10:00 AM
You're not kidding.
As they say, Legislation and Sausage....
go bowe
03-24-2005, 10:21 AM
I didn't realize you have access to SD Television and Radio feeds in MO. :hmmm:
The legal standard for "clear and convincing" in this state is not as easily met (according to the reporting going on right now) as you are trying to suggest.
The standard is subject to interpretation, which according to the lawyers they are interviewing locally, is much more rigorous than what you are suggesting. "Clear and convincing," in this case seems more akin to the legal standard of, say, reasonable doubt as opposed to a preponderence of evidence standard.
Of course, I'm sure you are probably more familiar with SD law than they are.well, i can read the plain language of the south dakota statute...
now you're claiming that "clear and convincing" is akin to beyond a reasonable doubt - i don't believe you and i bet you can't find one supreme court case in south dakota that says clear and convincing means anywhere near beyond a reasonable doubt...
man, you are a piece of work...
as soon as one of your absurd claims is disproven, you just move on to another ridiculous claim and pretend like you hadn't been bitch slapped with reality...
you said that the law in south dakota (and, accoriding to you, a majority of states) was that there had to be undisputed evidence, hoping that no-one would call :BS:
after being confronted with the actual south dakota statute, now you claiming that newscasts in south dakota support your view...
same old same old... :BS:
newscasts as law? brilliant!!
go bowe
03-24-2005, 10:24 AM
The three standards -- preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing and beyond a reasonable doubt are universal in the United States, and not special to South Dakota.
Preponderance of evidence means more likely than not. Basically, you can think of it as 50.0000001% or more likely to be true (although lawyers and judges stay away from assigning percentages to this stuff like the plague, I think it's the easiest way to explain that one).
Beyond a reasonable doubt means just that -- beyond a reasonable doubt. Not beyond any doubt, just a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is sometimes described as an articulable doubt -- one that you can say/describe that seems to make sense.
Clear and convincing is harder to prove than a preponderance, but not as hard as a reasonable doubt. It can't be described as more than what it says "clear and convincing". The fact-finder makes the determination of whether it's clear and convincing.
Please note that these matters relate to the findings of fact that the fact-finder (be it judge or jury) must make in any particular case. The rulings of LAW are made by the judge, and are not subject to these kinds of thresholds. The judge just decides the law, which is subject to review on appeal.oh, so now YOU know more than the news outlets in south dakota?
who do you think you are, some lawyer or somehthing? ROFL ROFL ROFL
go bowe
03-24-2005, 10:27 AM
Oh, and further to my last post, the standard "clear and convicing" would NOT require "undisputed" evidence. That isn't the standard. Heck, that's not even the standard for criminal trials. Undisputed essentially means 100% certain. 100% certainty is NEVER required.why, why... you judicial activist you...
you probably abhor the tenth amendment too, you dirty anti-federalist, you...
plus the law in the majority of states doesn't agree with you, just ask mr. k... ROFL ROFL ROFL
go bowe
03-24-2005, 10:30 AM
You are apparently under the amazingly absurd notion that justice or the legal system seeks "certainty".
Certainty almost never exists. People argue about facts and new issues that the law has never dealt with, or even thought of before, come up. And yet, decisions must be made. Someone must win and someone must lose in any case brought to trial. Certainty is never required, and 99% of the time, not possible in any event.oh oh, now you've gone and done it...
calling mr. k's notions about the law "absurd"...
next you'll be saying he's full of shit...
oops, that's been done already... ROFL ROFL ROFL
Simplex3
03-24-2005, 10:33 AM
When there is no clear written living will, and when there is conflict between the testimony of "family members" over what the wishes of the "comotose" are???
Just wonderin'? :hmmm:
I'm comfortable that the judge made the correct decision on who the legal guardian is. That legal gaurdian decided that she shouldn't be kept alive. I am comfortable with that.
go bowe
03-24-2005, 10:35 AM
ROFL
Don't worry, you aren't alone. As far as I know, you are the only one here who calls me Jason, but with a name like Justin, I've learned to just go with it and I have basically adopted the name Jason as well.
;)eh, justin, jason, what's the difference?
next you'll be calling yourself jaz...
oh, wait...
go bowe
03-24-2005, 10:39 AM
No, I understand your point. I was just careless in my language...I apologize for that; there just appears to be a reasonable amount of uncertainty in this case--at least according to many folks. Many others certainly disagree.so, when you make blanket statements about the law which are patently absurd, you are just being "careless" in your language?
like saying that the law in a majority of states is that there must be UNDISPUTED evidence before the plug can be pulled?
just careless in your language?
more :BS: ...
Amnorix
03-24-2005, 10:41 AM
so, when you make blanket statements about the law which are patently absurd, you are just being "careless" in your language?
like saying that the law in a majority of states is that there must be UNDISPUTED evidence before the plug can be pulled?
just careless in your language?
more :BS: ...
(note to self: don't get on Go Bo's bad side. When he gets mad and then gets on a roll, look out!)
:):p
|Zach|
03-24-2005, 10:42 AM
(note to self: don't get on Go Bo's bad side. When he gets mad and then gets on a roll, look out!)
:):p
ROFL
go bowe
03-24-2005, 10:42 AM
No need for you to apologize. Your contributions have clarified things somewhat in my mind. Earlier posters had tried to convey your point, but their efforts seemed to lack the language and clarity I was able to discern from yours.lack the language and CLARITY???
my posts lacked clarity?
noting that the law in south dakota is in fact NOT what you claimed it is, then proving it with a s.d. statute is not CLEAR enough for you?
how bout calling your notions absurd and saying that you're full of shit?
not CLEAR enough for you?
amazingly enough, more :BS: ...
what a surprise... ROFL ROFL ROFL
go bowe
03-24-2005, 10:46 AM
I just gave this thread a quick browse and it got me thinking. Even if I didn't know the two people involved and even if I had no idea what was being debated.
When one person is citing actual law as their evidence and another is paraphrasing a local evening news cast. You have to think one person is putting out better info than the other.how can you say that, you dirty activist, expansivenist, loose constructionist judge licker?
the s.d. legislature doesn't know what they're talking about...
and neither do YOU... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
go bowe
03-24-2005, 10:52 AM
Cute, Zach; "better" info depends on context and circumstance, doesn't it?
Let's see......law in a book, on-line, without context or case law and precedent to give context, versus in-person, "live," analysis from legal experts in THAT state on that state's laws. :hmmm:
I guess the local lawyers showin' up on TV are just FOS--which, FTR, I'd usually agree with. :pwhat's this?
now you say that written law needs case law and precedent to give it context? (judges interpret the law? OMFG!)
jeeez, that doesn't sound like a strict constructionist who goes by the literal meaing of written law...
are we having a change of heart, or are you just trying to slip and slide to escape being caught in another round of :BS: ?
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 10:58 AM
For your enjoyment:
- i don't believe you...man, you are a piece of work...your absurd claim...and you pretend like you hadn't been bitch slapped with reality...same old same old... :BS:
newscasts as law? brilliant!!
plus the law in the majority of states doesn't agree with you, just ask mr. k...
oh oh, now you've gone and done it...
calling mr. k's notions about the law "absurd"...
next you'll be saying he's full of shit...
oops, that's been done already
how bout calling your notions absurd and saying that you're full of shit?
but i get so tired of mr. k's ridiculous claims, claims that he never seems to be able to back up when he's called on it...
i mean, what's a little bullshit here and there?
And that's just the last 50 or 60 posts....guess I have no real need to be defensive. :rolleyes:
I suppose I should have responded in kind, but I didn't. I guess we are done. :shake:
WilliamTheIrish
03-24-2005, 10:59 AM
lack the language and CLARITY???
my posts lacked clarity?
noting that the law in south dakota is in fact NOT what you claimed it is, then proving it with a s.d. statute is not CLEAR enough for you?
how bout calling your notions absurd and saying that you're full of shit?
not CLEAR enought for you?
amazingly enough, more :BS: ...
what a surprise... ROFL ROFL ROFL
It's all about clarity.
Nevermind the Titanic hit an iceberg. Let's rearrange the deck chairs. ROFL
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 11:00 AM
what's this?
now you say that written law needs case law and precedent to give it context? (judges interpret the law? OMFG!)
jeeez, that doesn't sound like a strict constructionist who goes by the literal meaing of written law...
are we having a change of heart, or are you just trying to slip and slide to escape being caught in another round of :BS: ?
You really need to either STFU, or take one of these; you've lost it, John....
go bowe
03-24-2005, 11:14 AM
For your enjoyment:
And that's just the last 50 or 60 posts....guess I have no real need to be defensive. :rolleyes:
I suppose I should have responded in kind, but I didn't. I guess we are done. :shake:oh yeah, we're done, for now...
until the next time you make some ridiculous claim hoping people will let it slide...
or, as i've said repeatedly, more :BS: ...
and, gee, isn't it interesting that you want to fold your tent and go home when you've been proven wrong, again and again? ROFL ROFL ROFL
btw, would you like to call me arrogant again?
when you make your ridiculous accusations about me and my "judicial philosophies" or absurd claims about what the law is in a "majority of states", you can expect more of the same...
go bowe
03-24-2005, 11:16 AM
You really need to either STFU, or take one of these; you've lost it, John....well, that's ok...
it looks like you've never had "it"...
and i don't need to do anything just because you say it...
my days of putting up with your crap are over, bub...
deal with it!! :p :p :p
King_Chief_Fan
03-24-2005, 11:25 AM
Listening to two grown men bitch each other out over this stuff is
quite ridiculous.........but hey, what do I know? I looked at it.
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 11:54 AM
well, ....my days of putting up with your crap are over, bub...
deal with it!! :p :p :p
............
would you like to call me arrogant again?
when you make your ridiculous accusations about me and my "judicial philosophies" or absurd claims about what the law is in a "majority of states", you can expect more of the same...
Wow, if you wish to take my characterization of your demonstrated political and judicial philosophies personal....I guess I can at least understand your anger/frustration. That you take it so personally surprises me, though.
It's too bad your comments directed at me were not as "general" or abiguous in nature--I suppose it's safe to assume they were intended to be personal in nature. :shake:
|Zach|
03-24-2005, 11:57 AM
Wow, if you wish to take my characterization of your demonstrated political and judicial philosophies personal....I guess I can at least understand your anger/frustration. That you take it so personally surprises me, though.
It's too bad your comments directed at me were not as "general" or abiguous in nature--I suppose it's safe to assume they were intended to be personal in nature. :shake:
How could he not?
Rob, remember when we sat down and talked about owning your own words? Did you learn nothing?
go bowe
03-24-2005, 12:03 PM
Wow, if you wish to take my characterization of your demonstrated political and judicial philosophies personal....I guess I can at least understand your anger/frustration. That you take it so personally surprises me, though.
It's too bad your comments directed at me were not as "general" or abiguous in nature--I suppose it's safe to assume they were intended to be personal in nature. :shake:oh, c'mon...
tell me i'm an arrogant yale lawyer again...
after all, it's nothing personal...
and as far as "demonstrated" goes, i think you've done a pretty good job of demonstating that you're are often full of shit when you make your bullshit claims as to what the law is on a particular subject...
so, assume what you like, you usually do anyway... :p :p :p
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 12:04 PM
How could he not?
Rob, remember when we sat down and talked about owning your own words? Did you learn nothing?
What are you talking about? I do "own" those words--his view is typical of an east coast elitist, Ivy League, activist tradition....that he is insulted by that, I don't get.
That would be like me being insulted by a characterization of my view as midwestern, conservative, "hick", restraintist tradition....how could I be insulted by that?
It is what it is.... :shrug:
go bowe
03-24-2005, 12:05 PM
Wow, if you wish to take my characterization of your demonstrated political and judicial philosophies personal....I guess I can at least understand your anger/frustration. That you take it so personally surprises me, though.
It's too bad your comments directed at me were not as "general" or abiguous in nature--I suppose it's safe to assume they were intended to be personal in nature. :shake:ooops, i almost forgot...
more :BS: ...
hee hee... :p :p :p
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 12:07 PM
oh, c'mon...
tell me i'm an arrogant yale lawyer again...
after all, it's nothing personal...
and as far as "demonstrated" goes, i think you've done a pretty good job of demonstating that you're are often full of shit when you make your bullshit claims as to what the law is on a particular subject...
so, assume what you like, you usually do anyway... :p :p :p
You aren't a Yale lawyer....you haven't been arrogant? :shrug:
|Zach|
03-24-2005, 12:08 PM
You aren't a Yale lawyer....you haven't been arrogant? :shrug:
So I can call you a doucebag teacher and it wouldn't be personal. In your opinion.
Right? ROFL
go bowe
03-24-2005, 12:08 PM
What are you talking about? I do "own" those words--his view is typical of an east coast elitist, Ivy League, activist tradition....that he is insulted by that, I don't get.
That would be like me being insulted by a characterization of my view as midwestern, conservative, "hick", restraintist tradition....how could I be insulted by that?
It is what it is.... :shrug:aw, c'mon...
more :BS: ...
if you claim to not know what zach is talking about, you are either stupid or lying...
how's that for personal?
elitist? hah!
why don't you just go ahead and call me a liberal while you're at it?
even your insults are weak... :p :p :p
go bowe
03-24-2005, 12:10 PM
You aren't a Yale lawyer....you haven't been arrogant? :shrug:whatever you say, rob, whatever you say...
after all, you are always right about everything...
until someone points out that you're full of shit, anyway... :p :p :p
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 12:16 PM
whatever you say, rob, whatever you say...
after all, you are always right about everything...
until someone points out that you're full of shit, anyway... :p :p :p
Good luck with that, John. Life must be a joy for you....
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 12:33 PM
So I can call you a doucebag teacher and it wouldn't be personal. In your opinion.
Right? ROFL
If you wish to call me a douchebag...I'd hope you could back it up...
|Zach|
03-24-2005, 12:40 PM
If you wish to call me a douchebag...I'd hope you could back it up...
Would links to threads you post on suffice? :shrug:
DenverChief
03-24-2005, 12:48 PM
Would links to threads you post on suffice? :shrug:
zing
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 12:56 PM
Would links to threads you post on suffice? :shrug:
Sure. You've peaked my curriosity: I'd like to see what you would consider to be evidence of that... :hmmm:
|Zach|
03-24-2005, 01:00 PM
Sure. You've peaked my curriosity: I'd like to see what you would consider to be evidence of that... :hmmm:
I don't know bud. My time is a little (not much) more valuable than that.
If I showed you a post where you yourself called yourself a doucebag you would just start spinning and pass it off as careless language on your part. ROFL
Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 01:03 PM
I don't know bud. My time is a little (not much) more valuable than that.
If I showed you a post where you yourself called yourself a doucebag you would just start spinning and pass it off as careless language on your part. ROFL
So, either you are unable or unwilling to do that which you thought you could do.....to demonstrate that I'm a douche bag? :hmmm:
|Zach|
03-24-2005, 01:06 PM
So, either you are unable or unwilling to do that which you thought you could do.....to demonstrate that I'm a douche bag? :hmmm:
The only thing I am unable to do is comprehend how you think calling him an arrogant lawyer is not personal. I used doucebag teacher as a parallel. A great one IMO. You can't show arrogance in an empircal form just as you can't show doucebaggery in an empirical form.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.