Here is 0ne for the "Pull the Tube People" Out there

The Coffee Shop
21

What a dumb article.

This judge once worked in the same office as this person who supports hospices. This guy also knew the judge, and he also knew someone who was on the hospice board. Blah, blah blah. None of that adds up to conflict. It adds up to the that area of FL being a small world. I bet if you did a full-on work up of everyone the judge knew, he probably knew or worked with plenty of Republicans too.

Oh, by the way, Terri’s own mother testified that she had made statements about not wanting to be kept alive artificially as early as 12 years old. The preponderance of the medical testimony was based on an independant neurologist. Also, Michael Schiavo’s decision to allow Terris to die does roughly coincide with him moving in with his new girlfriend, but it also coincides with the end of the malpractice lawsuit, and the time when it became apparent that the aggresive therapies he had been trying for seven years were not going to have any effect.

22

The problem is, Congress cannot single out Terri Schiavo for special treatment. That’s a Bill of Attainder, and it’s unconstitutional. Below is a blurb I found on google about that. It could also be considered an ex post facto law, also unconstitutional:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e086.htm

EX POST FACTO CLAUSE - A misnomer in that actually two Constitutional clauses are involved. The U.S. Constitution’s Article 1 Section 9, C.3 states: ‘No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed,’ and Section 10 says: ‘No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law. . . .’

The ‘words and the intent’ of the Ex Post Facto Clause encompass ‘very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.’ Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (1 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.).

An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm

Bill of Attainder

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”

“The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature.” U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

“Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. … The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community.” James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include: Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866). Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866). U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965). Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977). Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).

See also, SBC v. FCC.

23

Oh, and I’m still waiting for you to prove your claim that Michael Schiavo signed an Affidavit saying he didn’t know what Terri would want. I’ve never heard that allegation anywhere except from you, so I’m awaiting your source…

24

You’ve had a busy day on the board.

Too bad every post has been filled with rampant stupidity.

As Art said, stop drinking the Kool Aid.

25

I don’t think the Ex Post Facto argument applies here. Even though i don’t agree with Congress’s actions, they didn’t try to make Michael Schiavo’s actions illegal after the fact, the simply gave jurisdiction over the Schindler’s request for injunction to the Federal courts. The courts then decided, as they do with countless cases every year, not to hear arguments.

26

The dictionary definition of Bill of Attainder ties in the crime of treason. I just don’t know exactly what that term meant at the time. I always thought it just meant a bill that only addressed one person or group, but that may be simplistic.

Regardless, it is a terrible way to write laws.

27

"This is really scary "

Only because you refuse to listen to anything other than the “spin” that makes this situation look bad.

A) Michael Shiavo had his doctor, the parents had theirs, and the court had their own independent doctor. The only doctor who said Terri had any hope was the parents.

B) How many judges reviewed this case? Probably at least 20 some. I’d be hard pressed to believe that each and every one of them had a conflict of interest.

C) What exactly do the hospice people have to do with this? Their responsibility is to care for Terri as they are instructed. The were instructed to keep her alive for years and they did and once they were instructed to withold life support (feeding tube) they did. Don’t really see how this is a conflict of interest.

So, basically this article is just like any of Michael Moore’s trash. It may be factual, but the only facts that are presented are those that further the author’s agenda and as such the article isn’t worth being used to wipe my ass.

28

Ex post facto may not apply directly, as they did not make a law outlawing tube removal, but it seems that Congress is trying to change the legal consequences of the case (& the the previous litigation) through the grant of jurisdiction. Shame on them.

29

Who says they are facts? A woman with a very obvious agenda? I prefer to get my information from impartial sources.
A couple of posts ago you said you weren’t disputing the facts. Which is it?
I’m not disputing them, I’m disregarding them…there’s a difference.