The latest twist in the Schiavo case.......

[2GOLD 0]

I believe today a patient at the hospice died, and because of all the coverage, security, and protestors, his next of kin could not make it be with him as he passed. THAT is shameful.

 

That is just god damn disgusting.

You know what? Let the stupid right for life people take her if they want her so bad. Maybe they'll dress her up and parade her out on TBN.

Ah, so this is ALL the pro-lifers fault?

 

Got it.

 

Not Michael's fault. No sir. Not the courts fault. Nope.

 

It's those damned evil pro-lifers who only think that a woman should NOT BE STARVED AND DEHYDRATED to death.

-=Mike

 

I don't care anymore.

Neither side cares about Terry anymore, she has become a puppet for their own amusement so they might as well give her robot arms and legs and let her dance at Sea World.

 

This shit stopped being about Terry the minute the media got involved and it became a circus.

 

Michael is a scumbag, fine. So are the people out front of the hospice causing the bullshit that could prevent someone who has nothing to do with this to die alone. Michael wants her dead, give him a gun and let him do it. Then arrest him for murder.

 

Half the people in front of the hospice think it's a damn breathing tube that was removed.

[NoCalMike 0]

I believe today a patient at the hospice died, and because of all the coverage, security, and protestors, his next of kin could not make it be with him as he passed. THAT is shameful.

 

That is just god damn disgusting.

You know what? Let the stupid right for life people take her if they want her so bad. Maybe they'll dress her up and parade her out on TBN.

The thing is, if one of them actually made it to Terry and poured water down her throat, she would die instantly.

And you know this...how?

-=Mike

She can't swallow.........

And, again, you know this...how?

 

Nobody has been ALLOWED by Schiavo to try for years.

-=Mike

My first guess would be the need for a feeding tube.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Maybe somebody will rig her up like a marionette doll, make her get out out of bed, and say "WHY DID YOU DO THIS TO ME! IT'S ALL THE DEMOCRATS FAULT" and then dramatically collapse, and then somebody tears away a curtain to reveal Tom DeLay working the strings.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Or maybe when they think she's died, Terry will jump out of bed, and say, "Psyche!".

[2GOLD 0]

Maybe somebody will rig her up like a marionette doll, make her get out out of bed, and say "WHY DID YOU DO THIS TO ME! IT'S ALL THE DEMOCRATS FAULT" and then dramatically collapse, and then somebody tears away a curtain to reveal Tom DeLay working the strings.

 

Sounds kinda like my plan.

I want us to just attach her to strings and let her dance at Disney World twice a day. Least then she'll be less of a puppet than she is right now.

[NoCalMike 0]

Maybe, Terry will miraculously wake up from a coma, look in the mirror, declare herself to look "too fat" and stick her finger down her throat, purge, and repeat the process that landed her into the vegetative state in the first place...?

[2GOLD 0]

Or maybe when they think she's died, Terry will jump out of bed, and say, "Psyche!".

 

I'd rather imagine this is all just one big episode of "PUNK'D" to start the new season.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I hope Michael Schiavo confesses to being the reason she was in this state by removing a hood from his head and declaring "It was me Terri! It was me all along!"

 

Aw, son of a bitch!

[NYU 0]

I think what we need here is a compromise solution. Michael gets to starve her Monday-Friday. Her parents get to reinsert the tube every weekend and on alternate holidays.

[NoCalMike 0]

So I guess Terry Schiavo has a blog.....

 

http://durrrrr.blogspot.com/

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Exactly what process do you have to go through to be eligable to bring a complaint to the Supreme Court?

 

I would like to propose to the Supreme Court that they hear some issue or complaint I have with someone. You know, nothing too serious, but still.

 

Because if these parents can get denied by the Supreme Court something like five times, certainly I have the right to get denied by the Supreme Court just for an ego boost.

[Guest TheDon]

I just heard on Stern that Terry Schiavo had just died.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Ditto. Time for Jobber and pals to throw their party...

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

CNN.com says a spokesman for her parents has said Terri is dead

[Boon 0]

May she finally rest in peace.

[redbaron29 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_damaged_woman

 

Schiavo Dies 13 Days After Tube Removed

 

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. - Terri Schiavo, the severely brain-damaged woman whose 15 years connected to a feeding tube sparked an epic legal battle that went all the way to the White House and Congress, died Thursday, 13 days after the tube was removed. She was 41

 

 

That settles it

[Slickster 0]

Old news. She died in 1990

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

I hope she rests in peace now.

[Guest MikeSC]

Exactly what process do you have to go through to be eligable to bring a complaint to the Supreme Court?

 

I would like to propose to the Supreme Court that they hear some issue or complaint I have with someone. You know, nothing too serious, but still.

 

Because if these parents can get denied by the Supreme Court something like five times, certainly I have the right to get denied by the Supreme Court just for an ego boost.

What process do you have to go through?

 

Submit a request to the Supreme Court. It really isn't that difficult.

 

Yes, they'll shoot you down with extreme prejudice (well, decline to hear your case), but it's all you have to do.

-=Mike

[Guest Deadbolt]

There's a couple things worth taking a look at here;

 

First, all the doctors involved in the woman's case say that she had no chance for recovery, and that all of her 'responsive movements' were reflex.

 

The Supreme court needs a majority decision to rule on something, and the majority of the supreme court (as it sits currently) was appointed to the bench by George Herbert Walker Bush, (Jeb and George's Dad.)

 

As we saw at the close of the 2000 election, the supreme court is firmly and squarely in the pocket of the Republicans in general and the Bush family in particular. So, while Bush may have stated that he wanted her alive, in the end, he could have saved her if he so desired. The power, you know, as the president and all, was firmly in his hands. You see, even if the Supreme Court actually did oppose him (they wouldn't), he and his governing body have the ability to make what we call "laws", which the Supreme Court has to obey/enforce.

Hmmmmmm.

 

What happened here is what we call "Deflective Politics." It is an amazing example of the Republican control over the media. This was one woman, a woman who according to doctors is a complete vegetable and who according to her husband wanted to be allowed to die; Since this Terri Shivoh thing started up, how much have we heard about Iraq or the Privatization of Social Security? These two issues are going to cost a lot more lives (let's ignore money here) than one woman in a coma.

 

Manipulation, Clap-clap-clap

Man-clap-ipu-clap-la-clap-tion!

[Guest Vitamin X]

Ding dong, the veg is dead.

[Guest MikeSC]

There's a couple things worth taking a look at here;

 

First, all the doctors involved in the woman's case say that she had no chance for recovery, and that all of her 'responsive movements' were reflex.

 

And there were doctors that disputed this.

The Supreme court needs a majority decision to rule on something, and the majority of the supreme court (as it sits currently) was appointed to the bench by George Herbert Walker Bush, (Jeb and George's Dad.)

Umm, IIRC, Bush Sr. appointed ONE justice (Thomas). Really, this is just BASIC research.

As we saw at the close of the 2000 election, the supreme court is firmly and squarely in the pocket of the Republicans in general and the Bush family in particular.

Or they recognized what a joke the FL Supreme Court's decisions were in Gore v Bush...

So, while Bush may have stated that he wanted her alive, in the end, he could have saved her if he so desired.

Yes, it was all a clever ruse by Pres. Bush. That's it.

The power, you know, as the president and all, was firmly in his hands. You see, even if the Supreme Court actually did oppose him (they wouldn't)

Because they've NEVER opposed him thus far. No sir.

he and his governing body have the ability to make what we call "laws", which the Supreme Court has to obey/enforce.

Hmmmmmm.

Umm, no, the Supreme Court really doesn't.

What happened here is what we call "Deflective Politics." It is an amazing example of the Republican control over the media.

Republican...control...of...the...media.

 

I am SO fighting the urge to hit "LOL!"

This was one woman, a woman who according to doctors is a complete vegetable and who according to her husband wanted to be allowed to die

And according to her family, didn't want to die. And the conservatives view was that her alleged desire to die should be proved to the same level as a death sentence conviction.

Since this Terri Shivoh thing started up, how much have we heard about Iraq or the Privatization of Social Security?

Iraq, since it's doing better, won't be reported on any longer (just as Afghanistan hasn't been). And Social Security? Just checking, you DO read the newspaper, right?

These two issues are going to cost a lot more lives (let's ignore money here) than one woman in a coma.

Yup. If Social Security isn't massively overhauled, it'll go under.

Ding dong, the veg is dead.

What, exactly, did she ever do to you to warrant this?

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

The good news is that Terry will never have to see her husband again. Because there is no way he is ever going to get to where she's going.

[Guest BDC]

So, while Bush may have stated that he wanted her alive, in the end, he could have saved her if he so desired.

 

How? What could he have done? Pardon her? Commute her sentence? She didn't commit any crime, it's out of his jursidiction... of course, since you think that:

 

he and his governing body have the ability to make what we call "laws", which the Supreme Court has to obey/enforce.

Hmmmmmm.

 

Then a bit is explained. Go read a basic American Gov't book. Congress makes laws, the Executive branch enforces them, the Courts rule on them. The Courts don't enforce them, they don't have the power to. Is any of this sounding familiar or did you sleep through the American Gov't class?

 

What happened here is what we call "Deflective Politics." It is an amazing example of the Republican control over the media. This was one woman, a woman who according to doctors is a complete vegetable and who according to her husband wanted to be allowed to die

 

No. This was a fucking despicable media circus that almost makes me ashamed of watching television with douchebaggery like this dominating the news. And you're conviniently ignoring that her parents who said she DIDN'T want to die. But then, since that doesn't fit your viewpoint, you disregard that, right?

 

The good news is that Terry will never have to see her husband again. Because there is no way he is ever going to get to where she's going.

 

Amen to that.

[Guest MikeSC]

So, while Bush may have stated that he wanted her alive, in the end, he could have saved her if he so desired.

How? What could he have done? Pardon her? Commute her sentence? She didn't commit any crime, it's out of his jursidiction... of course, since you think that:

Well, Bush technically COULD have pulled off an Elian Gonzales-style raid --- but that would've led to a MASSIVE Constitutional crisis.

-=Mike

[Guest BDC]

So, while Bush may have stated that he wanted her alive, in the end, he could have saved her if he so desired.

How? What could he have done? Pardon her? Commute her sentence? She didn't commit any crime, it's out of his jursidiction... of course, since you think that:

Well, Bush technically COULD have pulled off an Elian Gonzales-style raid --- but that would've led to a MASSIVE Constitutional crisis.

-=Mike

Yes, by assuming some powers that, in this case, would be constitutionally questionable at best. And that's stretching it.

[SuperJerk 0]

My parents lost their right to make decisions for me when I turned 18.

 

My wife will only loose that power if I divorce her.

 

 

It really is that simple.

[Lightning Flik 0]

Ding dong, the veg is dead.

What, exactly, did she ever do to you to warrant this?

-=Mike

Its more being tired of hearing about this story. It was a private matter that shouldn't've been dragged out for the world to see, it had been debated for 15 years prior and so likely had reached a conclusion (be it for good or bad), and there wasn't anything else to see besides everyone use it for their own agenda.

 

They are more like: "thank God its finally over. Now maybe people can move onto real issues."

 

Or at least so I think that's what they mean.

[Guest MikeSC]

My parents lost their right to make decisions for me when I turned 18.

 

My wife will only loose that power if I divorce her.

 

 

It really is that simple.

And I'm saying it's wrong. Your wife should not have the power to say "Well, he wanted to die" without some REAL concrete proof behind it.

 

In the Cruzan case, the Supreme Court ruled that a "clear and convincing" standard in cases where the victim stated a desire to die without anything in writing was perfectly acceptable --- but in this case, it was not followed. They ALSO ruled that

The Due Process Clause does not require a State to accept the "substituted judgment" of close family members in the absence of substantial proof that their views reflect the patient's. This Court's decision upholding a State's favored treatment of traditional family relationships, Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 , may not be turned into a constitutional requirement that a State must recognize the primacy of these relationships in a situation like this. Nor may a decision upholding a State's right to permit family decisionmaking, Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 , be turned into a constitutional requirement that the State recognize such decisionmaking. Nancy Cruzan's parents would surely be qualified to exercise such a right of "substituted judgment" were it required by the Constitution. However, for the same reasons that Missouri may require clear and convincing evidence of a patient's wishes, it may also choose to defer only to those wishes, rather than confide the decision to close family members.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...l=497&invol=261

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

My parents lost their right to make decisions for me when I turned 18.

 

My wife will only loose that power if I divorce her.

 

 

It really is that simple.

And I'm saying it's wrong. Your wife should not have the power to say "Well, he wanted to die" without some REAL concrete proof behind it.

So they should take her parent's word for it instead? Legally, the husband has more jurisdiction here than the parents.