Terri Schiavo: Please explain something to me... [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : Terri Schiavo: Please explain something to me...

Pages : 1 [2] 3

ShangriLaTroubl

03-27-2005, 12:08 AM

Dreammms

03-27-2005, 12:15 AM

No there IS NO PROOF that her wish to was to die..yes the courts have determined that this was her wish, based on testimony..but I think it's pretty well known that there is no proof, IE: video, living will, whatever of her saying that she wouldn't want to live this way..

Just because the courts believe Michael Schiavo, does not mean there is PROOF she said anything of the sort..it's just taking his word for it

Chris
I totally agree with this.

This whole thing just really bothers me. I feel so bad for Terri.

There's so many conflicting stories in this case, that's the problems.

Some DR's say she is PVS and others say minimal conscious state.

Some nurses say Michael would come in and say "is that bitch dead yet"
Some nurses say he was the most caring person for his wife.

There is also the fact of the broken bones. Others says that Michael had access to insulin. Others say it's fishy that he wants her cremated right away.

GypsySorcerer

03-27-2005, 12:19 AM

I feel that neither Michael Schiavo nor the Schindlers are really putting Terri first. It is a competition between them; a power struggle. :(

Most seem to agree that she isn't feeling anything. I hope this is true. I can't imagine knowing that you're in the middle of a power struggle between your husband and parents and are being used as a political pawn.

Dreammms

03-27-2005, 12:20 AM

That is a factually incorrect statement. The trial court judge based his decision on proof and that decision has been upheld many times by many courts.

What proof is there? The judge is just going by what Michael says Terri said.

Haven't you guys ever said " I rather be dead than be like that"? How can you take a statement like that and turn that into what I want to be done god forbid I am in that situation?

strandinthewind

03-27-2005, 12:25 AM

No there IS NO PROOF that her wish to was to die..yes the courts have determined that this was her wish, based on testimony..but I think it's pretty well known that there is no proof, IE: video, living will, whatever of her saying that she wouldn't want to live this way..

Just because the courts believe Michael Schiavo, does not mean there is PROOF she said anything of the sort..it's just taking his word for it

Chris

A direct statement from her in writing is not the only form of proof there is. I was coming at it from a legal perspective and from there, proof was given. Legally, that proof is/was all that was required regardless of whether I agree with the law or the outcome of this case. And - though I do not have the transcript in front of me, other people testified she expressed to them that she did not want to live this way :shrug: So, I think implying (which I think people have done) the husband made this up and the courts erroneously bought that sole statement is inaccurate :shrug: Moreover, even if it was based solely on the husband's statement, the court found no credible evidence of malfeasance on his part though many unsupported allegations were proffered :shrug:

Dreammms

03-27-2005, 12:26 AM

Most seem to agree that she isn't feeling anything. I hope this is true. I can't imagine knowing that you're in the middle of a power struggle between your husband and parents and are being used as a political pawn.

That's another thing. Imagine she really can feel and she knows what's going on. How sad!

SuzeQuze

03-27-2005, 12:27 AM

That is a factually incorrect statement. The trial court judge based his decision on proof and that decision has been upheld many times by many courts. Interestingly, though I have not reqd the trial transcript, I do not think her parents presented any proof that she wanted to live other than those videos which, though heartbreaking to watch because although there but for the Grace of God go I, all qualified medical experts conclude the expressions she makes do not indicate anything other than q persistent veg. state; i.e. she is unaware of anything and the tiny fraction of her brain that is left is her is operating her basic life support systems which reaquire no conscious effort.

In the end, no malfeasance on the part of the husband has been demonstrated other than in false innuendo. Thus, Florida law dictates that he has the final say. Regardless, it still makes great fodder for the R party to use to feed the anti-liberal movement seen of late. Thus, therein is the political interest.

Finally, I read where her husaqnd was offered a million dollars by a private party and the ability to keep any remaining money currently used to care for her if he relinquished his rights to the parents. He declined. That to me suggests his interests are not pecuniary as suggested :shrug:

Ahh, welcome back Jason. Thanks for this post. :nod: There's so much misinformation surrounding this case that it is scary. Randi was discussing it with a caller and she informed that caller that no judge has ever ruled against Michael Schiavo, they have all ruled to remove the feeding tube. All 16 judges in 23 separate instances.

strandinthewind

03-27-2005, 12:32 AM

How can some neurologists claim that she is not in a PVS if she is ? It makes no sense. This seems like a diagnosis that could not be argued. How hard is it to tell? Seems like to me they could just hook her brain up to something, and be able to tell..
I guess we will never know on some of these things...I just think maybe they should have left the tube in long enough for some last investigations , and said OK HEY , we are going to make sure 100% of these things that need to be investigated first...and we arent going to take 15 yrs..we are gonna do it NOW.. There's too many discrepencies to make this 100% certain.

Chris

From what I have seen, no medical doctor, save the right wing whores, have concluded she is not in a PVS. There were calls for other tests, but some would have required flying here to New York to perform it and the medical experts agree these tests will merely confirm the PVS and the parents and their supporters have stated that even if new tests confirm the PVS, they still will fight not to have the feeding tube removed. But, all of that is subterfuge, the bottom line is a court ruled based on a plethora of credible medical and other evidence that she did not want to live like this and many different courts have found nothing wrong with that decision. Thus, I say following her intent is the correct thing to do :shrug:

strandinthewind

03-27-2005, 12:35 AM

Ahh, welcome back Jason. Thanks for this post. :nod: There's so much misinformation surrounding this case that it is scary. Randi was discussing it with a caller and she informed that caller that no judge has ever ruled against Michael Schiavo, they have all ruled to remove the feeding tube. All 16 judges in 23 separate instances.

Thanks!!!!!!!! :wavey:

I left Shanghai yesterday (today) on a MIDNIGHT PLANE :laugh: and 12 hours later I arrived in Paris where in 3 or so hours, I will get on my plane back to Atlanta (! or so hours :eek: ) Currently, I am in the Air France lounge listening to the Ladd interview :blob1:

strandinthewind

03-27-2005, 12:40 AM

What proof is there? The judge is just going by what Michael says Terri said.

Haven't you guys ever said " I rather be dead than be like that"? How can you take a statement like that and turn that into what I want to be done god forbid I am in that situation?

That is proof under the law :shrug: Also, she said it to more than just him if I remember correctly :shrug: Also, why would someone say that (apparently repeatedly here) and not mean it :shrug:

strandinthewind

03-27-2005, 12:42 AM

That's another thing. Imagine she really can feel and she knows what's going on. How sad!

I think they are giving her morphine on the outside chance what is left of her brain cqn process pain. This whole thing is just so sad and it really emphasizes the need for a living will, durable power of attorney, or whatever the state requires.

Dreammms

03-27-2005, 12:45 AM

Thus, I say following her intent is the correct thing to do :shrug:

Well the judge and her husband made that her intent. There is no proof that that is what she wanted.

strandinthewind

03-27-2005, 12:46 AM

I totally agree with this.

This whole thing just really bothers me. I feel so bad for Terri.

There's so many conflicting stories in this case, that's the problems.

Some DR's say she is PVS and others say minimal conscious state.

Some nurses say Michael would come in and say "is that bitch dead yet"
Some nurses say he was the most caring person for his wife.

There is also the fact of the broken bones. Others says that Michael had access to insulin. Others say it's fishy that he wants her cremated right away.

Regarding the conflicting medical opinions, I am cynical because I and probably every other trial lawyer out there knows medical opinions can be bought. I think the most telling are the ind. ones, all of which conclude it is a PVS. Interestingly, when confronted, the opposing, pro-life doctors I have seen cannot explain how the objective medical evidence supports their decision - they merely refer to people with other similiar conditions who have gotten better.

strandinthewind

03-27-2005, 12:49 AM

Well the judge and her husband made that her intent. There is no proof that that is what she wanted.

I think we are talking about two different things. I am talking about legal proof, which is what was required of the husband. Based on the lack of a direct stqtement from her, he showed his experiences and the experiences of others, all of which showed she did not want to live this way. That was all that was legally required and that is all I an talking about :cool:

Dreammms

03-27-2005, 12:50 AM

That is proof under the law :shrug: Also, she said it to more than just him if I remember correctly :shrug: Also, why would someone say that (apparently repeatedly here) and not mean it :shrug:

The people she told were her husband and her husbands family. Why not tell her family and friends?

I understand what you are saying but I still don't think that Michael's word is proof enough.

strandinthewind

03-27-2005, 12:51 AM

That's another thing. Imagine she really can feel and she knows what's going on. How sad!

Based on the evidence, she seemingly would feel relieved knowing her intentions were seeing their fruition.

It is somewhat beyond me how people automatically assume she wants to live like this. I think most people would not.

strandinthewind

03-27-2005, 01:05 AM

I haven't been following this thread in particular so perhaps I'm not properly informed to judge however the one thing this has done is encourage people to state their wishes or write wills. I'm yet to hear anyone follow this by saying they have stated they would wish to remain alive in this state.

Surely they exist and that is their choice. But, I agree, I have never heard anyone say they would want to live this way and in fact have done many a document stating that they did not want to live.

ontheEdgeof17

03-27-2005, 01:15 AM

I just think it is ironic that it was an eating disorder that put Terri in this state to start with. :(

strandinthewind

03-27-2005, 01:21 AM

I just think it is ironic that it was an eating disorder that put Terri in this state to start with. :(

I know - I thought that too :eek:

This case is just so hard because people do not believe the husband IMO based mostly on lies created to discredit him. This happens all of the time in the legal world - For example - many divorce Petitions contqin conpletely false charges put there to make fiction reality. But, I digress - in this case and as previously mentioned, there are people other than the husband ready willing and able to care for her, so why not let her live the one or two years she may have left even though that very well could be against what the court found she wanted.

gldstwmn

03-27-2005, 01:24 AM

Kelly

03-27-2005, 08:56 AM

Nancy Grace can be one annoying chick! I do admire her passion and tend to agree with her viewpoint more often than not, but in this case...I totally disagree. I also think she is way off base with some of what she says about the Mickeal Jackson case too. She constantly makes references to the porn found on MJ's computer and insinuates to the listeners that it was "child porn" but none, not one bit of it was. She can be misleading when she wants to push her view and the evidence doesn't match up to what she believes is the truth. She fights for the victim, which is admirable, but sometimes she lets her emotions cloud her judgement. Her whole rant about how Michaal Schiavo has another woman and children, therefore has given up his rights as Terri's guardian annoys me to no end. He has as much right at she to move on with his life after fifteen years. To imply he is a disloyal to Terri for having a woman in his life, is plain ridiculous. I have a love hate relationship with Nancy.
Chris Pixley is my boy. He is so cute and always remains objective and informative throughout any debate..no matter how he may feel personally.

SuzeQuze

03-27-2005, 09:37 AM

Thanks!!!!!!!! :wavey:

I left Shanghai yesterday (today) on a MIDNIGHT PLANE :laugh: and 12 hours later I arrived in Paris where in 3 or so hours, I will get on my plane back to Atlanta (! or so hours :eek: ) Currently, I am in the Air France lounge listening to the Ladd interview :blob1:

Welcome. And hopefully by now you are home safe and sound with your babies. :D

SuzeQuze

03-27-2005, 09:42 AM

I think they are giving her morphine on the outside chance what is left of her brain cqn process pain. This whole thing is just so sad and it really emphasizes the need for a living will, durable power of attorney, or whatever the state requires.

If you get Suze Orman's latest book, the companion Website asks some questions and then you have your Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare doc. You just have to get it notarized and witnessed. This is the first thing she tells you to get done which I thought was interesting.

What it does is state who is in charge of making healthcare decisions for you in the event that you cannot. First on my list is my Mother. So if something happens to me, as I understand it, she has the final word on how to handle my situation. Now I tell her my wishes and then, should this happen, she will carry them out. Is that right Jason?

I suppose if I were suspicious my Mother would not carry out my wishes then I would have to have another document, the living will, spelling them out. Would that hold up next to the DPOA?

SuzeQuze

03-27-2005, 09:45 AM

Don't shoot me (a dagger in the spleen is fine however) but that realisation made me laugh.

The woman clearly doesn't want to eaty anyway! :]

Sorry, I don't mean to offend, but dark humour can save my sanity. :sorry:

ShangriLaTroubl

03-27-2005, 11:18 AM

I have a love hate relationship with Nancy.
Chris Pixley is my boy. He is so cute and always remains objective and informative throughout any debate..no matter how he may feel personally.

Haha I think most ppl have that kind of relationship with Nancy..She's my favorite though, although I don't always agree with her (is there ANYONE I will always agree with? No dont think so!) She being a former prosecuter, does tend to embellish sometimes I think it might have something to do with that..she's usually against all defense attorneys, but nevertheless her show is an opinion show..and a good show IMO...She's def. not afraid to stand up to anyone, AND she's a Georgia native..which is cool!
I think it is significant that Michael would let kids be in his room, where he has ANY pornography near them...not something normal people do...but I dont want to make this thread about Michael.
Chris

irishgrl

03-27-2005, 11:42 AM

No there IS NO PROOF that her wish to was to die..yes the courts have determined that this was her wish, based on testimony..but I think it's pretty well known that there is no proof, IE: video, living will, whatever of her saying that she wouldn't want to live this way..

Just because the courts believe Michael Schiavo, does not mean there is PROOF she said anything of the sort..it's just taking his word for it

Chris

but its the best system we have. The proof is in the form of statements given under oath, under penalty of perjury and absent a living will or some other such directive, its the next best thing.

this Link (http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm) gives a timeline, with hotlinks to relevant documents, worth a look.

and here is mention of the "PROOF" (http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/021100-Trial%20Ct%20Order%200200.pdf)the trial court used to make its determination. (SEE PAGES 4-9)

gldstwmn

03-27-2005, 12:42 PM

Chris Pixley is my boy. He is so cute and always remains objective and informative throughout any debate..no matter how he may feel personally.

I adore Chris Pixley! I just wish they'd have him on more often. Have you ever checked out his website? There are some really nice photos of him on there. His specialty is constitutional law.

Mad4stevie

03-27-2005, 02:37 PM

This case is just so hard because people do not believe the husband IMO based mostly on lies created to discredit him. This happens all of the time in the legal world - For example - many divorce Petitions contqin conpletely false charges put there to make fiction reality.

Ah, yes . . . those who work in the legal world know how often many cases turn on "he said, she said" testimony when there is no physical proof. Almost all of my custody cases are this way. It can be frustrating because the "proof" is directely tied to the amount of credibility a witness has in the eyes of the judge. Hence, the need to discredit the other side in one way or another to "prove" your case.

DrummerDeanna

03-27-2005, 03:27 PM

Well the headline when I started up my computer said that Terri Shiavo's parent have ended their legal fighting? Well at this point (9days w/no nourishment) it's probably for the best - now they can just be with her during her last days etc....

I can only imagine the pain that this has caused all involved...but 15 years is way too long to live the way Terri was "living" in my opinion....I hope she can finally go to a place where she can truly rest in peace...

xxxmx

03-27-2005, 05:18 PM

until now, i had purposefully stayed VERY FAR away from this thread. for whatever reason, i just sat and read all 19 pages and made these notes:

terrisfight.net is the least informative site on the web. the videos were carefully edited to show 'reactions' and 'interactions' that, medically speaking, CANNOT occur. i don't blame the schindler family for falsely interpreting these, but come on guys, it's been 15 years.

michael schiavo has been DEMONIZED for 'moving on.' first, can you really move on when the shell of your wife is still there? i don't think so. many many years passed before he fell in with the 'new wife' and his children are very young, though talk radio hate-spewers would have you believe that he picked up the woman on his way to the hospital in 1990. terri was granted only half of a life, it's ridiculous to think that he should forego a fulfilling life and parenthood.

as for the protesters who get arrested for trying to give her water/ice - good, because if they did, she would have choked to death. great post about the swallow testing, BTW. i happen to live 5 miles from the hospice she's in, and i am SICK of those protesters. a message to them: climb down off your cross and go home! you've gotten on camera, leave! you aren't doing a thing and you're effing up the traffic down here :mad: .

patricia heaton fasting in honor of terri is truly riotous. a self-professed anorexic of minor celebrity suddenly matters in this case? also funny, she does the adverts for albertsons - A GROCERY STORE! i've already sent in my letter about that one, always great to be standing in line at the store reading the latest in STAR about how she's wasting away when she comes over the loud speaker telling you to buy food, save it...

TOM DELAY IS A TOOL. i am seething over the statements made by congressmen who have never ever seen her in person. oh, and the doctor who the schindlers brought in to discredit the standing diagnosis of PVS, he stated that although she didn't respond or interact in any way the entire time he was at her bedside, you know, he just *felt* like she was still there. his license should be revoked.

also, just to throw it out there because it hasn't been addressed here: terri isn't smiling in those clips. she's in a state of contracture (please correct me here, it's something like that) which is when the dominant muscles in each group contract. you've heard that it's easier to smile than frown, right? if they EVER showed the rest of her body, she would probably be fetal, or close to it, as the largest muscles in the legs and arms would draw them close to the body.

this case is tragic, this case is really hard to wrap the mind around... to some, LIFE is no more than a beating heart. while the schindlers were praying for a miracle, IMHO they should have been praying for the strength to accept their daughter's fate.

Serrart

03-27-2005, 05:39 PM

From how we're seeing this case on TV, and how our commentators are describing it, I can say that it seems a tragic paradox of your society. This lady has to agonize in this way for her right to leave an existence that isn't life anymore, and around her bed there's a circus. No trace of judgement in what I'm saying, just what it seems from the perspective we're getting on this.

Romy

strandinthewind

03-27-2005, 06:10 PM

If you get Suze Orman's latest book, the companion Website asks some questions and then you have your Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare doc. You just have to get it notarized and witnessed. This is the first thing she tells you to get done which I thought was interesting.

What it does is state who is in charge of making healthcare decisions for you in the event that you cannot. First on my list is my Mother. So if something happens to me, as I understand it, she has the final word on how to handle my situation. Now I tell her my wishes and then, should this happen, she will carry them out. Is that right Jason?

I suppose if I were suspicious my Mother would not carry out my wishes then I would have to have another document, the living will, spelling them out. Would that hold up next to the DPOA?

I am pretty sure that is correct, though states can differ, etc. And - SO's site seems up to date and many rely on it. I am glad she is promoting this. I mean this is about choice over your life - it is not really about taking a life - at least to me.

irishgrl

03-27-2005, 07:08 PM

Ah, yes . . . those who work in the legal world know how often many cases turn on "he said, she said" testimony when there is no physical proof. Almost all of my custody cases are this way. It can be frustrating because the "proof" is directely tied to the amount of credibility a witness has in the eyes of the judge. Hence, the need to discredit the other side in one way or another to "prove" your case.

if you are a CONVICTED child molester with deep pockets, you have more credibility nowadays than a law abiding public employee who is poor.....I should know :mad: :mad: :mad:

gldstwmn

03-27-2005, 07:12 PM

terrisfight.net is the least informative site on the web. the videos were carefully edited to show 'reactions' and 'interactions' that, medically speaking, CANNOT occur. i don't blame the schindler family for falsely interpreting these, but come on guys, it's been 15 years.

That's the site Randall Terry is associated with.

skcin

03-27-2005, 07:44 PM

DrummerDeanna

03-27-2005, 07:58 PM

Again I woke up hoping this woman's suffering would be over. Again, she's still hanging on. I only hope she doesn't die today so Mr. Terry doesn't make her a martyr for dying on Easter.

So the other night hubby & I were talking to my parents about this. Of course, my mother said "well, if something happened to you, I would do everything I could to save you." So I said "but I wouldn't want you to save me if I were like that. I'm telling you right now, I don't want that. Mark will be the one to take care of everything, not you. I'm 29 years old & married." And she says "well, I don't care, I'd fight anyway." Great. Thanks mom. :(

I (half) jokingly told her I'm calling my brother so we can call lawyers now to prevent her from shoving tubes down our throats or into our stomachs. :rolleyes:

I know - I keep hoping that when I turn on the tv or get onto the Internet that I'll hear that her suffering has ended :distress:

And my grandmother said the same thing your mom did :rolleyes: I know I would NOT want to be kept alive that way....of course the one consolation is that hopefully she is really not aware what is going on ya know? I think technically she died 15 years ago....so hopefully these past 15 years haven't been total hell on Earth for her....

heyjupiter678

03-27-2005, 09:37 PM

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/news/nation/11245844.htm

Death from dehydration a gentle process, scientists say

BY STACEY BURLING AND MICHAEL VITEZ
Knight Ridder Newspapers

PHILADELPHIA - (KRT) - Terri Schiavo is dying now as many aged and sick people have for eons.

Though some people see letting her die of dehydration as inhumane, doctors say it is a surprisingly gentle process.

"Nature has given us a wonderfully peaceful way to exit this life," said Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at the Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in New Hampshire. "The dominant way that mammals die is that, at some point, they lose interest or the ability to eat or drink. The physiology and experience of people who are unable or refuse to eat or drink after progressive or advanced illness is one that is very gentle and very comfortable."

John Hansen-Flaschen, chief of pulmonary, allergy and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, made a similar point, saying, "This is the way many, many people died over all of the millenniums until medicine got so actively engaged in the process."

Courts have ruled that Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state. By definition, she has no awareness of herself or her environment and no ability to experience pleasure, pain or, for that matter, thirst, Hansen-Flaschen said.

Paul Marik, director of the division of pulmonary and critical care at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, said Schiavo may react reflexively to pain, but only the most primitive part of her brain, the brain stem, is working. The higher parts of her brain are incapable of perceiving that pain.

"Pain is a conscious interpretation of what's happening," he said. "If you can't interact with the environment, if you're not awake and you're not conscious, you can't perceive pain."

Schiavo, who began her ninth day without nutrition or water Sunday afternoon, will die of dehydration, not starvation, the doctors said. It will cause her kidneys to fail. Toxins will build up in her blood, eventually causing her heart to stop beating. Dehydrated patients gradually weaken, drift into a coma, and appear to die painlessly, Marik said.

"It's a very painless and very compassionate way of dying," he said.

Even a normal, healthy person would feel little discomfort after the first few days of thirst, the doctors said.

Caregivers typically moisten the mouths of patients who have stopped eating and drinking, Byock said. Many, Hansen-Flaschen said, also give morphine, more to relieve the worries of relatives than to lessen pain.

---

strandinthewind

03-29-2005, 11:09 AM

I thought this was interesting - I think it is RANK hypocrisy for the far right and others to call this judicial activism when all Judge Greer did was apply the law :shrug: :mad:

washingtonpost.com

It's The Law, Not the Judge
But These Days the Bench Is the Hot Seat
By Jeffrey Rosen

Sunday, March 27, 2005; Page B01

The response to the rulings in Terri Schiavo's case, following close after the murder of a state judge in Atlanta and a federal judge's family in Chicago, has put not only judicial opinions but judges themselves suddenly under the spotlight. The U.S. Marshals Service reports a "dramatic increase" in threats against federal judicial officials in recent years. And political attacks on judges seem to grow ever more vitriolic. The title of a best-selling new book makes its unsubtle point: "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America."

Judges today are being catapulted into public view as personalities who seem fair game for attack rather than as anonymous oracles of the law. Part of the reason for this is the legalization of politics: Both liberals and conservatives are increasingly asking judges to decide issues -- from the right to die to presidential elections -- that politics are unable to resolve. As a result, when politicians and disappointed litigants don't like the result of a judicial decision, they feel emboldened to demand a new judge rather than accepting their defeat with good grace. This new personalization of the judiciary poses grave threats to the idea of judicial independence, which judges should try to resist by avoiding the spotlight rather than courting it.

The Schiavo case is the most dramatic illustration of this trend in which politicians try to cherry-pick judges who agree with them and attack those who do not. Judge George W. Greer, the circuit court judge who presided over the case in Pinellas County, Fla., has been vilified throughout the ordeal: Opponents picketed him, bombarded him with harassing letters and e-mails, and threatened to impeach or even kill him.

The response of Congress and the president to his ruling was unprecedented: They attempted to select a judge more to their liking by passing a law directing federal courts to ignore Greer's findings and to reexamine the case. But two federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same legal conclusions as Greer. That suggests the law is clear. But what did the disappointed petitioners do? They denounced the judiciary in general: "The judges are running this country," Schiavo's father, Robert Schindler, said Thursday afternoon outside the hospice where his daughter has received much of her care since she collapsed in 1990.

Congress has contributed mightily to this poisonous atmosphere. Both parties are responsible for the escalating warfare over judicial nominations, which is now on the verge of blowing up the Senate, as Republicans prepare to eliminate the filibuster and Democrats prepare to retaliate by bringing other Senate business to a halt. This self-destruction would cap a decade of attacks on judges by both parties. In 2003, for example, Congress passed a law requiring that every time a federal judge reduces a sentence, the judge's name should be reported to Congress. "The game is over for judges," announced Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

There have been at least nine periods in American history when Congress has tried to curb judicial independence, beginning with the Jeffersonian Republicans' attacks on the Marshall court. What makes the current wave of judge-bashing unusual is that virulently personal attacks now come from both sides of the political spectrum. Liberals routinely denounce such Supreme Court justices as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as partisan conspirators, and they publish books with titles like "Right Wing Justice: The Conservative Campaign to Take Over the Courts." And conservatives respond in kind. "Some justices have been senile, racist, and crooked," Mark Levin, author of the conservative "Men in Black," told the National Review Online. According to Levin, "de facto judicial tyranny" today "frustrates and disenfranchises the American people and thwarts representative government."

In addition to its intemperance, the accusation that judges are anti-democratic elitists is also flatly wrong. As Mark Tushnet of Georgetown University Law Center argues in a less popular but far more convincing new book, "A Court Divided," the Rehnquist court has actually supported the views of a narrow majority of the American people, rather than thwarting them, in all the most controversial cases of the culture wars, involving affirmative action, gay rights and access to early-term abortions. In the Schiavo case, too, polls show that a majority of Americans agreed with the federal judge's decision not to reinsert the feeding tube and strongly disagreed with Congress's effort to interfere in the legal battles.

What can explain the odd gap between the political attacks on judges as tyrannical activists and the reality that, in most cases, for better or worse, they reflect the constitutional views of national majorities? The most obvious culprit: interest groups. Although judicial nominations are not a salient political issue for most of the country, they matter intensely to groups on the extreme left and right, who want to use the courts to achieve results they are unable to win at the ballot box. But there may be a political price to this pandering: President Bush and congressional Republicans have been placating their religious and social conservative base while alienating the rest of the country.

What's more, judge bashing by the president and Congress creates an atmosphere of disrespect that encourages citizens to personalize the judiciary as well. In this more polarized, less hierarchical age, more people are proving unwilling to accept judicial decisions with which they disagree: If Congress can demand a new judge when it doesn't like the result of a case, why shouldn't a disappointed litigant, as well?

Journalists contribute to this personalization by emphasizing in stories about the courts, the political affiliation of federal judges and the presidents who appointed them. And even juries have succumbed to the pressures for personalization. Until the 1960s, jurors generally refused to talk to the press, reflecting the widespread convention that justice is blind; today, in high-profile trials, they have their own booking agents pitching them for the morning talk shows within moments after a verdict.

But judges are not entirely powerless in the face of these relentless cultural and political forces. Their most effective defense is to follow the law as scrupulously as possible and not to be rattled by political pressures. "All the judges have banded together to support Judge Greer," Schiavo's father lamented.

It's important, too, for judges not to be rattled by political attacks into grandiose assertions of judicial supremacy. When the Rehnquist Court, in reaffirming Roe v. Wade in 1992 and the case requiring cops to give Miranda warnings in 2000, asserted that it alone was entitled to interpret the Constitution, it exaggerated its own political importance in a way that invited further congressional attacks.

Finally, to the greatest degree possible, judges should try to avoid the spotlight. In the 19th and 20th centuries, there were no judicial memoirs, in the modern sense. The first justice to present himself as a celebrity was William O. Douglas, who published a largely fictionalized account of his Pacific Northwest boyhood in 1974. But Douglas's unfortunate example may have been a harbinger of things to come. Not long ago, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor appeared on the morning talk shows to promote her own autobiography of her Western girlhood. And Clarence Thomas recently sold a memoir for $1.5 million.

A better approach is that of William Rehnquist, who told C-SPAN that he always admired Robert E. Lee's refusal to write a memoir; the chief justice didn't think it appropriate for judges to reveal their personalities in public. Unlike some of his colleagues, Rehnquist understands that ill-advised exercises in self-revelation only encourage citizens and politicians to respond to judges in personal terms. At the vmoment, the judiciary is the last branch of American government that has largely resisted the strong public pressures on officials to bare their emotions and personalities in public. And in our violently polarized age of celebrity, judges will encourage the personalization of justice at their own peril.

Jeffrey Rosen is a law professor at George Washington University and legal affairs editor of the New Republic. His latest book is "The Naked Crowd" (Random House).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2536-2005Mar26.html?referrer=emailarticle

Mad4stevie

03-30-2005, 12:53 AM

Federal Appeals Court grants additional review to Schiavo's parents:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7293186/

gldstwmn

03-30-2005, 01:06 AM

Federal Appeals Court grants additional review to Schiavo's parents:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7293186/

Why? :shrug:

strandinthewind

03-30-2005, 01:33 AM

I think experts have concluded that even in the tube is reinserted now, the damage is irreversible at this point. But, stranger things have happened in this case - I mean she has lived an extraordinary amount of time so far. It just hurts me to think that this poor woman could be in pain from the method of euthanizing her. I respect the court's holding, but just hate hate hate the method - I think it is barbaric. I think they should have given her a lethal injection instead of starving her. This whole thing just is horrible.

strandinthewind

03-30-2005, 01:48 AM

Also, there is an old, old, old saying in law that goes "why else would they take it if they did not want to grant the request?" So, we shall see - in my experience, this saying rings true often. Interestingly, the court did not order the tube reinserted and this poor woman could be dead at any given minute. This makes me wonder if this is not some kind of political play - something to the effect of the 11th Cir. issues its ruling overturning the trial court just as she dies, thus vindicating the pro lifers.

Also, Heather - how did they get back into the 11th Cir. The Court has already refused to hear this. I thought when the Court refuses cert. (or whatever it was in this case) from the 11th Cir.'s ruling, all lower courts have no jurisdiction, much less the jurisdiction to hear the same case en banc :shrug: Maybe this Emergency Motion is a sep. civil action? I need to haul out that Fed. Rules of Civil. Pro. :laugh:

strandinthewind

03-30-2005, 01:57 AM

Well, here is the answer to my question!!!!!

From the NY Times (emphasis supplied)

March 30, 2005
Appeals Court Grants Additional Review in the Schiavo Case
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 1:40 a.m. ET

ATLANTA (AP) -- A federal appeals court early Wednesday agreed to consider a petition by Terri Schiavo's parents for a new hearing on whether to reconnect their severely brain-damaged daughter's feeding tube.

The ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came on Schiavo's 12th day without nourishment. The Schindlers had argued that the District Court ``committed plain error when it reviewed only the state court case and outcome history.''

Now, the court is considering the request for a new trial rather than whether the state court rulings have met legal standards under Florida law, which is what federal courts have done in the case up to now.
Earlier Tuesday, Schiavo's father, Bob Schindler, described his daughter as ``failing'' following his visit Tuesday.

``She still looks pretty darn good under the circumstances,'' Schindler said. ``You can see the impact of no food and water for 12 days. Her bodily functions are still working. We still have her.''

Schiavo's parents have maintained that their daughter would want to be kept alive. Schiavo's husband, Michael, insists he is carrying out her wishes by having the feeding tube pulled.

Federal courts were given jurisdiction to review Schiavo's case after Republicans in Congress pushed through unprecedented emergency legislation over the weekend aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life. But federal courts at two levels rebuffed the family.
_______________________________________________________________

Interestingly, what is the basis for a new trial. There are usually two:

1. The trial court erred - which here appears to already have been decided that it did not - thus they cannot raise that one

or

2. New Evidence - the only thing here is the attorney's utterly meritless statement that this poor woman grunted something like "I Want" which I thing she (the attorney) should be disbarred for because it clearly is a lie - at least to me.

gldstwmn

03-30-2005, 03:14 AM

strandinthewind

03-30-2005, 11:09 AM

I can't say I disagree with you. She will be placed on a morphine drip if she is not already on one.

The press reported yesterday that she has had two morphine suppositories over the course of 12 days. Interestingly, she does not appear to be in pain or at least she is incapable of experiencing it or :eek: expressing that she is experiencing it.

I saw an interview with Phelps last night and the interesting thing about him and his ilk is that they talk a great game of "we do not know Mrs. Schiavo's wishes" but even if this poor woman had written down her desire to have the tube removed, they would still be against it and do everything to stop it. Thus, the crux of my issue with this case - they are full of crap for suggesting that they would respect anyone's wishes not to choose life in this instance.

For me, it all comes down to this, the Florida legislature, which is hardly a liberal body, set forth the method for determining the intent of a person like this when there is no formal document expressing their desire. Due in part to the sanctity of marriage, the law vests the right in the spouse to make the call and sets forth the type of evidence it can consider. The Judge (a staunch R and Baptist who has been thrown out of his church over this mind you :rolleyes: ) followed the law in this case. So, there is no evidence of any judicial activism at all despite the impassioned but unfounded cries of it. The judge's decision, which includes the finding of no bad intent on behalf of Mr. Schiavo, has been upheld by every court in the land that could possibly review it. So, I think the proper course is to respect the husband's desire as much as it grates on my that this poor woman is starving to death as we speak.

It really is no one's business once the court ruled and the appeals were exhausted. But, the politicians cannot let it go. They are milking this publicity cow for all it is worth. That is just sick.

ontheEdgeof17

03-30-2005, 11:29 AM

The press reported yesterday that she has had two morphine suppositories over the course of 12 days. Interestingly, she does not appear to be in pain or at least she is incapable of experiencing it or :eek: expressing that she is experiencing it.

It's called comfort measures. It is done for all hospice patients. Morphine is NOT given to kill a patient. It is NOT given to speed up the dying process. It is NOT given for ****s and giggles. I got reallllllllllly angry when the father said they were trying to kill her. REALLY PISSED. As a nurse, myself, it really hurt my feelings to think that people are fast at making assumptions before educating themselves on the subject at hand.

Morphine is given because we do not want the patient to be in pain. Are they experiencing it? Possible. Can they voice that they are? Not often. We as nurses want to make the dying process as painless as possible....brain dead or not.

estranged4life

03-30-2005, 11:34 AM

someone in my family I would kindly let 'em slip from this life and let 'em know I will see someday on the otherside of this existence...I already know 2 people who are awaiting me someday :nod:

gldstwmn

03-30-2005, 11:38 AM

For me, it all comes down to this, the Florida legislature, which is hardly a liberal body, set forth the method for determining the intent of a person like this when there is no formal document expressing their desire. Due in part to the sanctity of marriage, the law vests the right in the spouse to make the call and sets forth the type of evidence it can consider. The Judge (a staunch R and Baptist who has been thrown out of his church over this mind you :rolleyes: ) followed the law in this case. So, there is no evidence of any judicial activism at all despite the impassioned but unfounded cries of it. The judge's decision, which includes the finding of no bad intent on behalf of Mr. Schiavo, has been upheld by every court in the land that could possibly review it. So, I think the proper course is to respect the husband's desire as much as it grates on my that this poor woman is starving to death as we speak.

I am appalled at the way Judge Greer has been treated over this decision.
Rick Santorum was on CNN last night and Aaron Brown cornered him on his comment that all the courts were wrong. Santorum puffed up his chest and decried the Florida and 11th Circuit decisions but got completely tongue tied when asked about the Supreme Court. It was rather amusing to watch him squirm.

Mad4stevie

03-30-2005, 11:41 AM

It's called comfort measures. It is done for all hospice patients. Morphine is NOT given to kill a patient. It is NOT given to speed up the dying process. It is NOT given for ****s and giggles. I got reallllllllllly angry when the father said they were trying to kill her. REALLY PISSED. As a nurse, myself, it really hurt my feelings to think that people are fast at making assumptions before educating themselves on the subject at hand.

Morphine is given because we do not want the patient to be in pain. Are they experiencing it? Possible. Can they voice that they are? Not often. We as nurses want to make the dying process as painless as possible....brain dead or not.

I heard an interview where it was discussed that sometimes morphine is given to patients in PVS as a consolation to the family, not because the patient was "experiencing" pain. Hummmmm . . .

Mad4stevie

03-30-2005, 11:44 AM

I am appalled at the way Judge Greer has been treated over this decision.

I agree with you on this one. It disgusts me that his own church writes him a letter and tells him not to bother coming back. This type of hypocracy is why I take issue with the conservative Christian right.

ontheEdgeof17

03-30-2005, 11:54 AM

I heard an interview where it was discussed that sometimes morphine is given to patients in PVS as a consolation to the family, not because the patient was "experiencing" pain. Hummmmm . . .

If that was true for this case, then why are the parents complaining about it? :rolleyes:

We give it for comfort. No one knows if the patient is experiencing pain. My grandma died of brain cancer. She didn't respond to internal or external stimuli. People always say, "I hope they are not dying a painful death." That's why we give them Morphine, to do the best we can so they don't.

Death by any means is not pleasant. Whether you are starving, drowning, in an accident, etc.......I see this case as any other. If we threw her in a pool and let her drown, there would be hell raised. There is no easy way to die. Even in your sleep, you are gasping for air...

strandinthewind

03-30-2005, 11:55 AM

I am appalled at the way Judge Greer has been treated over this decision.
Rick Santorum was on CNN last night and Aaron Brown cornered him on his comment that all the courts were wrong. Santorum puffed up his chest and decried the Florida and 11th Circuit decisions but got completely tongue tied when asked about the Supreme Court. It was rather amusing to watch him squirm.

From a legal aspect, there are two forums here. This decision has been affirmed by all appellate courts that have considered it. Thus, there is no question the Florida State Court trial judge (Greer) correctly applied Florida law in this matter.

The second forum provided was created by Congress when it determined it wanted to provide Mrs. Schiavo with another method in addition to the Florida State Court. Mrs. Schiavo and related parties had no standing to assert Federal jurisdiction without a special bill. So, it passed (unanimous in the Senate and 203-58 in the Hoiuse) the following bill:

SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.

Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.

SEC. 3. RELIEF.

After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.

Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.

SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--
(1) to assisting suicide, or
(2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.

SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.

Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.
SEC. 8. NO AFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.

Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self- Determination Act of 1990.
SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

It is the Sense of Congress that the 109th Congress should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/bill31905.html (emphasis supplied)

The bolded lang. in Terri's Bill mandates the Federal Court must give Mrs. Schiavo a new hearing. The Federal Court's did not do that. They instead deferred to the state court's decision, which was in direct conflict with the bolded lang. above. That is what Santorum was talking about in the interview I saw last night. He justifiably is pissed because the Federal court's essentially ignored the specific lang. in Terri's Bill for a de novo consideration. Here is the 11th Cir.'s decision http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511556.pdf

I cannot agree with Congress' intrusion into this CLEARLY state court matter, but I agree the Federal Courts did not apply the law they were given. I think that is an academic argument however because if the Federal Courts reached the same conclusion as the state courts, then it is logical to assume the Federal Courts would have reached the same conclusion on the same facts if they had had a de novo hearing. Thus, this is a tempest in a teapot.

strandinthewind

03-30-2005, 12:01 PM

If that was true for this case, then why are the parents complaining about it? :rolleyes:

We give it for comfort. No one knows if the patient is experiencing pain. My grandma died of brain cancer. She didn't respond to internal or external stimuli. People always say, "I hope they are not dying a painful death." That's why we give them Morphine, to do the best we can so they don't.

Death by any means is not pleasant. Whether you are starving, drowning, in an accident, etc.......I see this case as any other. If we threw her in a pool and let her drown, there would be hell raised. There is no easy way to die. Even in your sleep, you are gasping for air...

I am with you on this. Hospice has been given a bad bad deal here. ALL people who know anything know that the pro life people are spinning hospice in a bad way. These clinics are there to comfort dying people. This is their job. To assert that the insertion of two morphine suppositories in 12 days is some underhanded attempt to truncate Mrs. Schiavo's life is patently absurd.

skcin

03-30-2005, 12:04 PM

I am with you on this. Hospice has been given a bad bad deal here. ALL people who know anything know that the pro life people are spinning hospice in a bad way. These clinics are there to comfort dying people. This is their job. To assert that the insertion of two morphine suppositories in 12 days is some underhanded attempt to truncate Mrs. Schiavo's life is patently absurd.

:nod: :nod: :nod:

Hospice does a phenomenal job.

strandinthewind

03-30-2005, 12:07 PM

:nod: :nod: :nod:

Hospice does a phenomenal job.

I mean their job is hard enough - then these a$$holes give them grief. I mean they watch death all day long. They do not need this :mad:

SuzeQuze

03-30-2005, 12:27 PM

I mean their job is hard enough - then these a$$holes give them grief. I mean they watch death all day long. They do not need this :mad:

Yeah, a hospice nurse called into Stephanie Miller this morning talking about what they do. She said, "you actually do the Lord's work". That was a good point. God and Jesus would want dying people to be treated with dignity and to be comforted in any way possible. These people are angels among us!

The family is just desperate and will say anything to try to get that tube back in their daughter. And the right wing fundies will gladly ride their coattails and make this a political issue when it has nothing to do with their pro-life stance. O'Reilley went so far last night as to say liberals love abortion. These people make me crazy.

WTF is Jesse Jackson getting involved now for? :shrug:

I wish this case weren't elevated to this media circus. It's not my business, not congress' business nobody's but the families and the courts. People using this tragedy to push an agenda is the sickest thing in a long time, and some pretty sick sh*t has been going on. :distress:

GypsySorcerer

03-30-2005, 12:39 PM

Yeah, a hospice nurse called into Stephanie Miller this morning talking about what they do. She said, "you actually do the Lord's work". That was a good point. God and Jesus would want dying people to be treated with dignity and to be comforted in any way possible. These people are angels among us!

The family is just desperate and will say anything to try to get that tube back in their daughter. And the right wing fundies will gladly ride their coattails and make this a political issue when it has nothing to do with their pro-life stance. O'Reilley went so far last night as to say liberals love abortion. These people make me crazy.

WTF is Jesse Jackson getting involved now for? :shrug:

I wish this case weren't elevated to this media circus. It's not my business, not congress' business nobody's but the families and the courts. People using this tragedy to push an agenda is the sickest thing in a long time, and some pretty sick sh*t has been going on. :distress:

Jesse Jackson will do anything for political attention, IMO.

strandinthewind

03-30-2005, 01:30 PM

An interesting thought:

Exemplifying the shameless hypocrisy that has permeated all of the actions of Bush and Congress in this case, White House spokesman Scott McClellan issued a statement that in matters of life and death, such as the Schiavo case, the president believed in careful reflection and deliberation. This from a man who, as governor of Texas, rubber-stamped the execution of 152 prisoners, giving an average of 15 minutes apiece to their death row appeals. The Bush White House’s record of “respect for human life” has included the razing of entire cities in Iraq, the dispatch of US Special Forces and CIA death squads around the world, and the widespread use of torture.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/schi-m21.shtml

I get that convicts have done something wrong and Mrs. Schiavo has not. But, the fact remains that the legislative brance determined both must die - convicts via the criminal statutes and Mrs. Schiavo via the legal method for her guardian to establish her intent. Thus, they are VERY similar. Thus, the hypocisy of W.

strandinthewind

03-30-2005, 02:11 PM

Here is an article from the Atlanta Jounral Const. clarifying the new 11th Cir. appeal.

Interestingly, I walked past the 11th Cir. about and hour ago. There were about 10 news crews mulling about by their cameras and vans and one lone protestor (an older lady) very respectfully holding up a big picture of Mary as Our Lady of Guadalupe and silently mouthing prayers.

Appeal by Schiavo's parents questions husband's actions

> By BILL TORPY
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
> Published on: 03/30/05
The parents of Terri Schiavo are telling an appeals court in Atlanta that the husband of the severely brain damaged woman sought her death only after receiving a cash malpractice award.

The latest petition, filed late Tuesday night, seeks a new hearing before all 12 members of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court agreed Tuesday to consider an emergency motion requesting a new hearing on whether to reconnect Schiavo's feeding tube. The court did not say when it would decide whether to grant a rehearing.

It was not clear what effect reconnecting Schiavo's feeding tube would have on her as she approached her 13th day without nourishment.

The new filing by Bob and Mary Schindler attacks contentions of Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband and guardian, that Terri would not want to live in a vegetative state. The petition says Michael did not bring forth Terri's "wishes" until almost five years after she fell into a vegetative state in 1990.

"His 'evidence' concerning Terri's wishes was discovered (or remembered) only after Michael had begun living in what can only be described as a common law marital relationship with another woman," the parents' filing states. "And the recollections he and his family submitted were 'recollected' only after Micahael stopped spending the malpractice award on Terri's rehabilitation."

The Schindlers contend that Michael fought in court in the early 1990s for money to rehabilitate his wife. He was awarded $300,000 for himself and $700,000 for his wife's treatment in 1993.

Michael Schiavo and his in-laws had a falling out shortly after that.

The parents' lawyers are seeking the new hearing as a followup to a 3-0 denial by the 11th Circuit Friday. Tuesday's court order only allowed the Schindlers to file the appeal, even though the court had set a March 26 deadline to do so.

"The Appellant's emergency motion for leave to file out of time is granted."

The 11th Circuit had also ruled against the Schindlers earlier last week.

Attorneys for the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo didn't immediately return phone messages Wednesday.

Time was running out for Schiavo, however. Bob Schindler described his daughter on Tuesday as "failing."

"She still looks pretty darn good under the circumstances," Schindler said. "You can see the impact of no food and water for 12 days. Her bodily functions are still working. We still have her."

Doctors have said Schiavo, 41, would probably die within two weeks after the tube was removed March 18. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, insists he is carrying out her wishes by having the feeding tube pulled.

The request for a new hearing also asks to have the tube reinserted immediately "in light of the magnitude of what is at stake and the urgency of the action required."

The order was a ray of hope for the Schindlers, who are battling their son-in-law over their daughter's fate. The case has wound its way through six courts for seven years; the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene five times.

Protesters keeping a 24-hour vigil outside the hospice praised the latest decision.

"There's a chance for a miracle," said Christine Marriott, 43, who rushed to the hospice after hearing the news on TV. "Anything positive is a breath of life."

Early Wednesday, a man was arrested when he tried to bring a plastic cup of water into the hospice. Officers stopped him at the gate as he shouted: "You don't know God from Godzilla!"

He became the 48th protester arrested since the tube was removed on a court order sought by her husband. Terri Schiavo suffered catastrophic brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped for several minutes because of a chemical imbalance apparently brought on by an eating disorder.

The Schindlers have maintained that their daughter would want to be kept alive.

Their attorneys raised the issue of the new request after a Saturday deadline set by the court, saying they have had more time to research the issues and have become convinced that the federal court in Tampa had "committed plain error when it reviewed only the state court case and outcome history."

Attorneys for the Schindlers have argued that Terri Schiavo's rights to life and privacy were being violated.

"I think the courts want to be sure that there's no accusation that any legal argument was ignored," said attorney Neal Sonnett, former chairman of the American Bar Association's criminal justice section.

Federal courts were given jurisdiction to review Schiavo's case after Republicans in Congress pushed through unprecedented emergency legislation aimed at prolonging her life. But federal courts at three levels have rebuffed her parents.

On Tuesday, her mother, Mary Schindler, made a terse but emotional appeal to Michael Schiavo: "Michael and Jodi, you have your own children. Please, please give my child back to me." Michael Schiavo and fiancee Jodi Centonze have two children, born long after Terri Schiavo's collapse.

Although supporters of the Schindlers have claimed the dehydrated woman is being denied comforts such as ice chips for her dry mouth or balm for chapped lips, George Felos, the husband's attorney, defended how Schiavo is being cared for.

"Obviously, the parents and the siblings are desperate. Desperation may lead to different perceptions," Felos told CNN. "I can only tell you what I've seen, and Terri is dying a very peaceful, cared-for death."

The Rev. Jesse Jackson prayed with the Schindlers on Tuesday and joined conservatives in calling for state lawmakers to order her feeding tube reinserted.

The former Democratic presidential candidate was invited by Schiavo's parents to meet with activists outside Schiavo's hospice. His arrival was greeted by some applause and cries of "This is about civil rights!"

"I feel so passionate about this injustice being done, how unnecessary it is to deny her a feeding tube, water, not even ice to be used for her parched lips," he said. "This is a moral issue and it transcends politics and family disputes."

First lady Laura Bush also commented on the case Tuesday, saying the government was right to have intervened on behalf of Schiavo.

"It is a life issue that really does require government to be involved," Bush said aboard a plane bound for Afghanistan, where she was promoting education and women's rights.

Associated Press writer Jonathan Landrum Jr. in Atlanta contributed to this report.

Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/atlanta/0305/30schiavo.html
____________________________________________________

I think the statement "His 'evidence' concerning Terri's wishes was discovered (or remembered) only after Michael had begun living in what can only be described as a common law marital relationship with another woman," the parents' filing states. "And the recollections he and his family submitted were 'recollected' only after Micahael stopped spending the malpractice award on Terri's rehabilitation." is a little misleading. While the timing may coincide, it also should be pointed out that the husband spent thousands seeking help to determine if Mrs. Schiavo was indeed braid dead with no hope of recovery. He even learned nursing to take care of her and flew her, I believe, out to California for cutting edge testing. So, I think the correct statement would be "After exhausting all avenues to determine if she could recover, he decided to put forth intent." Plus, he asserts the parents wanted some of that money for repayment of their kindness to him. Why does everyone automatically discount that. From what I have seen, her parents are CLEARLY not above lying to get their way.

strandinthewind

03-30-2005, 03:36 PM

CNN is reporting the 11th Cir. has denied the newest appeal.

Mad4stevie

03-30-2005, 05:53 PM

CNN is reporting the 11th Cir. has denied the newest appeal.

Yeah - and supposedly there was a statement in the ruling that any further attempts filed by the Schiavo's in either state or federal court would be "improper". Not that this would stop them . . . :(

Mad4stevie

03-30-2005, 06:29 PM

As a matter of fact, MSNBC is reporting that the parent's lawyers will file yet another appeal to the US Supreme Court. Good lord.

strandinthewind

03-30-2005, 09:21 PM

As a matter of fact, MSNBC is reporting that the parent's lawyers will file yet another appeal to the US Supreme Court. Good lord.

Who will flatly reject it if history teaches us anything.

Personally, I would have thought the Court would have liked to have opined on the case the first time it was appealed. I think this is diff, than the Cruz decision in that there was a party in this case that was willing to take of Mrs. Schiavo. The question then squarely before the Court would have been "Whether the Consituitional right to die gives a party, here the parents, interested in administering care a superior right over the state sanctioned right of guardianship" or something like that. In other words, does Cruz apply in this situation. It would have been interesting to read the 5-4 decision.

strandinthewind

03-30-2005, 09:31 PM

Here is the 11th Cir.'s latest denial

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/33005ca11rhrng2.pdf

They rule the Public Law Congressed passed (Terri's Law) was an Unconstitutional extension of Federal jurisdiction. This legally is a corect decision.

Mad4stevie

03-30-2005, 09:34 PM

Who will flatly reject it if history teaches us anything.

Personally, I would have thought the Court would have liked to have opined on the case the first time it was appealed. I think this is diff, than the Cruz decision in that there was a party in this case that was willing to take of Mrs. Schiavo. The question then squarely before the Court would have been "Whether the Consituitional right to die gives a party, here the parents, interested in administering care a superior right over the state sanctioned right of guardianship" or something like that. In other words, does Cruz apply in this situation. It would have been interesting to read the 5-4 decision.

Yep. It would have been very interesting reading for sure. I agree the issue is different than the Cruzan case.

Also sounds as if some are pointing to bad lawyering on the part of Schiavo's lawyer for not getting to the true constitutional issues until now. At least that is what some legal pundits are saying tonight.

strandinthewind

03-30-2005, 09:40 PM

Yep. It would have been very interesting reading for sure. I agree the issue is different than the Cruzan case.

Also sounds as if some are pointing to bad lawyering on the part of Schiavo's lawyer for not getting to the true constitutional issues until now. At least that is what some legal pundits are saying tonight.

I tend to agree. I would have argued the Constitutionality of it no matter which side I represented, but esp. if I represented Mr. Schiavo. Maybe it was smart not to though because no court ever reached it until now and it is too late now unless the Court takes it on this issue, which it could not very likely do, but that does not mean the Court will do what Congress said regarding the de novo review - I mean the Court ignored that last time :shrug:

Mad4stevie

03-30-2005, 09:50 PM

I tend to agree. I would have argued the Constitutionality of it no matter which side I represented, but esp. if I represented Mr. Schiavo. Maybe it was smart not to though because no court ever reached it until now and it is too late now unless the Court takes it on this issue, which it could not very likely do, but that does not mean the Court will do what Congress said regarding the de novo review - I mean the Court ignored that last time :shrug:

Yes. Thanks for posting the link to the opinion.

It was interesting to note that the dissenting judges Tjofat and Wilson note that "the plaintiffs have NOW stated a plausible claim" as if it was about time. :laugh:

I think the Supremes will decline again to take the matter.

Also, I found it interesting that there was some dissention in the ranks when Gibbs (Schindler's lawyer) stated that she is beyond the point of recovering and then the parents came out and blasted him for saying that. Must be some interesting behind the scene antics going on there.

strandinthewind

03-30-2005, 10:01 PM

Yes. Thanks for posting the link to the opinion.

It was interesting to note that the dissenting judges Tjofat and Wilson note that "the plaintiffs have NOW stated a plausible claim" as if it was about time. :laugh:

I have argued before Tjoflat before. He pulls no punches and is VERY direct, which IMO is what you want when orally arguing a case. He also IMO is a good jurist.

Also, I found it interesting that there was some dissention in the ranks when Gibbs (Schindler's lawyer) stated that she is beyond the point of recovering and then the parents came out and blasted him for saying that. Must be some interesting behind the scene antics going on there.

I know. From my point of view, the parents are frantic in their grabbing at straws. I feel badly for them and, again, cannot say I would not be doing the same if I thought my child wanted to live. I also think the powers to be that are driving them are filling their head with tripe like "you still have a chance" and, perhaps, "you owe us this appeal for all the support we have given you." The whole thing is just tragic and I truly feel for the parent's pain in this.

Mad4stevie

03-30-2005, 10:07 PM

I have argued before Tjoflat before. He pulls no punches and is VERY direct, which IMO is what you want when orally arguing a case. He also IMO is a good jurist.

I know. From my point of view, the parents are frantic in their grabbing at straws. I feel badly for them and, again, cannot say I would not be doing the same if I thought my child wanted to live. I also think the powers to be that are driving them are filling their head with tripe like "you still have a chance" and, perhaps, "you owe us this appeal for all the support we have given you." The whole thing is just tragic and I truly feel for the parent's pain in this.

That's interesting that you have an inside point of view on Tjoflat. I agree that being direct is one of the best qualities that a judge can have. I cannot stand when judges are "all over the place", especially on their evidentiary rulings. I don't do much appeal work now; mostly trial work.

How much do you think Gibbs and Felos are pushing this for their own agendas?

Gibbs is on MSNBC now.

heyjupiter678

03-30-2005, 10:15 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/politics/29donate.html?pagewanted=print&position=&oref=login

March 29, 2005

List of Schiavo Donors Will Be Sold by Direct-Marketing Firm
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and JOHN SCHWARTZ

ASHINGTON, March 28 - The parents of Terri Schiavo have authorized a conservative direct-mailing firm to sell a list of their financial supporters, making it likely that thousands of strangers moved by her plight will receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups.

"These compassionate pro-lifers donated toward Bob Schindler's legal battle to keep Terri's estranged husband from removing the feeding tube from Terri," says a description of the list on the Web site of the firm, Response Unlimited, which is asking $150 a month for 6,000 names and $500 a month for 4,000 e-mail addresses of people who responded last month to an e-mail plea from Ms. Schiavo's father. "These individuals are passionate about the way they value human life, adamantly oppose euthanasia and are pro-life in every sense of the word!"

Privacy experts said the sale of the list was legal and even predictable, if ghoulish.

"I think it's amusing," said Robert Gellman, a privacy and information policy consultant. "I think it's absolutely classic America. Everything is for sale in America, every type of personal information."

Executives of Response Unlimited declined to comment. Gary McCullough, director of the Christian Communication Network and a spokesman for Ms. Schiavo's parents, confirmed that Mr. Schindler had agreed to let Response Unlimited rent out the list as part of a deal for the firm to send an e-mail solicitation raising money on the family's behalf.

The Schindlers have waged a lengthy legal battle against their son-in-law Michael Schiavo to prevent the removal of the feeding tube from their daughter, who doctors say is in a persistent vegetative state.

Mr. McCullough said he was present when Mr. Schindler agreed to the arrangement in a conversation with Phil Sheldon, the co-founder of a conservative online marketing organization, RightMarch.com, who acted as a broker for Response Unlimited.

"So the Schindlers do know the details," Mr. McCullough said on Monday. How much attention they paid to the matter is hard to assess, he added. "The Schindlers right now know that their daughter is starving to death, and if I ask about anything else, they say, 'I don't want to hear about it.' "

Direct mail and mass e-mailings are ubiquitous fund-raising tools of interest groups on the left as well as the right, and others in the direct-mail business defended the sale of lists like the roster of donors to the Schindlers as a useful way for potential donors to learn of causes that might appeal to them.

Pamela Hennessy, an unpaid spokeswoman for the Schindlers, said she was initially appalled when she learned of the list's existence.

"It is possibly the most distasteful thing I have ever seen," Ms. Hennessy said. "Everybody is making a buck off of her."

Ms. Hennessy, who operates the Schindlers' Web site, www.terrisfight.org, said the family had not released any of the names or e-mail addresses gathered there. "Obviously these people are enterprising, and they are taking advantage of this very desperate father," she said.

On Sunday, as the Schindlers gave up on their legal battle and their daughter passed her 10th day without food, others continued to rally supporters and solicit money in an effort to restore the feeding tube.

"This time, we have a real chance to break through the 'roadblocks' that the enemies of life have been putting up in front of us," said a mass e-mailing from RightMarch.com, asking supporters to urge Gov. Jeb Bush to intervene somehow.

The message added: "We're asking you to give a donation to help with our activism efforts to save Terri's life. Battles cost money; resources cost money; media costs money; we could go on, but you get the picture."

Mr. Sheldon - whose father, the Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, has also sent appeals urging support for Ms. Schiavo - apparently played a dual role as a partner in RightMarch.com, which is working with the anti-abortion activist Randall Terry, and as a broker for Response Unlimited. Mr. Sheldon did not respond to phone calls yesterday.

"I think it sounds a little unusual right now because of the situation where she is in the process of dying," said Richard Viguerie, another major conservative direct-mail operator. "If you came across this information six months or a year from now, I don't think you would give it too much thought."

-------

Mad4stevie

03-30-2005, 10:33 PM

heyjupiter678

03-30-2005, 10:45 PM

I heard a snipet today that talked about contributing to this fund and then they get a "free gift" of a video of Terri in her hospice room. That is totally outrageous! :mad: I know. I think I read somewhere that you'd get the video for a $100 donation. :distress: It's appalling.

Mad4stevie

03-30-2005, 10:56 PM

Supremes just refused to hear the appeal. Big surprise. That didn't take long.

strandinthewind

03-31-2005, 02:50 AM

How much do you think Gibbs and Felos are pushing this for their own agendas?

Felos is an interesting case. He has done relativedly no press when compared to Gibbs and the supporters of Mrs. Schiavo's parents. In fact, the spin doctor pundits were all complaining last night that the parents are seen in a beter light by the public because they and their posse (lynch mob if you ask me) are very very vocal and are getting GREAT marketing advice. For example, no supporters of Mr. Schiavo are ever sen outside of the nursing home, Mr. Schiavo rarely makes a public statement and then takes questions, etc. So, that leads me to think Felos is behaving in a more dignified manner than Gibbs. Plus, Gibbs has flat out lied on more than one occasion to advance his cause - I mean the video they keep playing over and over is a staged thing that took hours to shoot in order to get Mrs. Schiavo to appear as if she is responding directly to stimuli - that is just sick IMO. I also think that given the private money that is going into this on the parents side (they are the ones primarily acting in the most public manner and state officials are not cheap and Federal one are even more expensive) - Gibbs or at least the people paying him have a huge interest and are using the parents as puppets, which is sad because I think the parents truly believe they are doing the right thing even if it is not what Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted.

Again, I think it is sad that the parents in their desparation chose this very public and humiliating road, but I cannot say I would not o the same if I thought it was the only way to save my child.

strandinthewind

03-31-2005, 02:59 AM

Supremes just refused to hear the appeal. Big surprise. That didn't take long.

No surprise there.

The spin doctor pundits were spinning this as "poor Terri Schiavo is caught in a power struggle (dare I say pissing war :eek: ) beteween the Judicial and Legislative Branches of the Federal Govt. That argument is unsurprisingly bogus on two levels.

First, this is a case wherein the state court on a SOLELY state court issue followed the law - no one can argue it did not.

Second, when Congress inappropriately allowed special standing for Federal jurisdiction for Mrs. Schiavo, that was a slap in the face to the Florida Legislature and courts and legislature. Who the hell do they think they are telling Florida, much less her husband, what to do when Florida was clearly within the Federal guidelines in this matter? Notwithstanding that autrocity, they got the power struggle lang. by noting the 11th Cir.'s direct lang. about Congress' unconstitutionally overstepping its authority in Terri's Bill. While this may be seen as a Federal pissing contest, it is an historically appropriate one (Court's interpret law and have for the last 200+ years been overruling Congress :shrug: ) and all actions by all Federal parties cannot obviate the real issue which is Mr. Schiavo won fair and square under Florida law. Thus, the parents are forum shopping (again, the feds are not cheap to buy) for any court in any jurisdiction to find in their favor - NONE of which have.

This is a sad satement on the hypocrisy of the the far far right in that they cannot stand it when the courts rule against them outside of the law except for when it suits them to have them do so.

strandinthewind

03-31-2005, 08:04 AM

Here is an updated version of the history of this saga:

ETHICS HOME > SCHIAVO CASE RESOURCES > TIMELINE

KEY EVENTS IN THE CASE OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO

Kathy Cerminara, Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center

Kenneth Goodman, University of Miami Ethics Programs

Acknowledgements.

This resource is a joint project of the University of Miami Ethics Programs and the Shepard Broad Law Center at Nova Southeastern University. This content may be reproduced for non-commercial, education purposes only, with appropriate attribution to the source. (For more information, read our copyright policy.) Please send comments, suggestions and corrections to Ken Goodman, UM Ethics Programs, at [email protected]. News media and others seeking comment from Florida Bioethics Network leaders should call 305-243-5723.

Timeline

December 3, 1963

Theresa (Terri) Marie Schiavo, nee Schindler, is born.

Novermber 1984

Terri and Michael Schiavo are married.

February 25, 1990
Terri Schiavo suffers cardiac arrest, apparently caused by a potassium imbalance and leading to brain damage due to lack of oxygen. She was taken to the Humana Northside Hospital and was later given a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) to provide nutrition and hydration.

May 12, 1990

Terri Schiavo is discharged from the hospital and taken to the College Park skilled care and rehabilitation facility.

June 18, 1990

Court appoints Michael Schiavo as guardian; Terri Schiavo’s parents do not object.

June 30, 1990

Terri Schiavo is transferred to Bayfront Hospital for further rehabilitation efforts.

September 1990

Terri Schiavo’s family brings her home, but three weeks later they return her to the College Park facility because the family is “overwhelmed by Terri’s care needs.”

November 1990

Michael Schiavo takes Terri Schiavo to California for experimental “brain stimulator” treatment, an experimental “thalamic stimulator implant” in her brain.

January 1991

The Schiavos return to Florida; Terri Schiavo is moved to the Mediplex Rehabilitation Center in Brandon where she receives 24-hour care.

July 19, 1991

Terri Schiavo is transferred to Sable Palms skilled care facility where she receives continuing neurological testing, and regular and aggressive speech/occupational therapy through 1994.

May 1992

Terri Schiavo’s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, and Michael Schiavo stop living together.

August 1992

Terri Schiavo is awarded $250,000 in an out-of-court medical malpractice settlement with one of her physicians.

November 1992

The jury in the medical malpractice trial against another of Terri’s physicians awards more than one million dollars. In the end, after attorneys’ fees and other expenses, Michael Schiavo received about $300,000 and about $750,000 was put in a trust fund specifically for Terri Schiavo’s medical care.

February 14, 1993

Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers have a falling-out over the course of therapy for Terri Schiavo; Michael Schiavo claims that the Schindlers demand that he share the malpractice money with them.

July 29, 1993

Schindlers attempt to remove Michael Schiavo as Terri Schiavo’s guardian; the court later dismisses the suit.

March 1, 1994

First guardian ad litem, John H. Pecarek, submits his report. He states that Michael Schiavo has acted appropriately and attentively toward Terri Schiavo.

May 1998

Michael Schiavo petitions the court to authorize the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube; the Schindlers oppose, saying that Terri would want to remain alive. The court appoints Richard Pearse, Esq., to serve as the second guardian ad litem for Terri Schiavo.

December 20, 1998

The second guardian ad litem, Richard Pearse, Esq., issues his report in which he concluding that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state with no chance of improvement and that Michael Schiavo’s decision-making may be influenced by the potential to inherit the remainder of Terri Schiavo’s estate.
Pearse GAL Report

January 24, 2000

The trial begins; Pinellas-Pasco County Circuit Court Judge George Greer presides.

Testimony of Father Gerard Murphy

February 11, 2000

Judge Greer rules that Terri Schiavo would have chosen to have the PEG tube removed, and therefore he orders it removed, which, according to doctors, will cause her death in approximately 7 to 14 days.
Trial Court Ruling

March 2, 2000

The Schindlers file a petition with Judge Greer to allow “swallowing” tests to be performed on Terri Schiavo to determine if she can consume—or learn to consume—nutrients on her own.

March 7, 2000

Judge Greer denies the Schindlers’ petition to perform “swallowing” tests on Terri Schiavo.

March 24, 2000

Judge Greer grants Michael Schiavo’s petition to limit visitation to Terri Schiavo as well as to bar pictures. Judge Greer also stays his order until 30 days beyond the final exhaustion of all appeals by the Schindlers.

Greer Stay and Order Limiting Visitation

January 24, 2001

Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal (2nd DCA) upholds Judge Greer’s ruling that permits the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube.

In re Schiavo, 780 So. 2d 176 (2nd DCA 2001), rehearing denied (Feb. 22, 2001), review denied, 789 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2001). (Case No.: SC01-559)

DCA Ruling

February 22, 2001

The Schindler family’s motion for an Appellate Court rehearing is denied.

March 12, 2001

Michael Schiavo petitions Judge Greer to lift his stay, issued March 24, 2000, in order to permit the removal of Terri Shiavo’s PEG tube.

March 29, 2001

Judge Greer denies Michael Schiavo’s motion to lift stay issued on March 24, 2000; Michael Schiavo can remove Terri’s PEG tube at 1 p.m. on April 20.

Greer Order

April 10, 2001

The 2nd DCA denies the Schindlers’ motion to extend Judge Greer’s stay, which is scheduled to expire April 20, 2001.

4-10-01 DCA Order

April 12, 2001

The Schindlers file a motion requesting that Judge Greer recuse himself.

April 12, 2001

The Schindlers petition the Florida Supreme Court to stay the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube.

4-12-01 Motion for Stay Part 1

4-12-01 Motion for Stay Part 2

4-12-01 Court’s Request for Response from Schiavo

April 16, 2001
Judge Greer denies the Schindlers’ motion to recuse himself.

April 18, 2001

The Florida Supreme Court chooses not to review the decision of the 2nd DCA.

In re Schiavo, 789 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2001). Case No.: SC01-559

3-22-01 Schindler family’s Notice to Appeal to Supreme Court

3-30-01 Schindlers’ Jurisdictional Brief Part 1

3-30-01 Schindlers’ Jurisdictional Brief Part 2

4-18-01 Order Denying Rehearing and Motion for Stay

April 20, 2001

Federal District Court Judge Richard Lazzara grants the Schindlers a stay until April 23, 2001, to exhaust all their possible appeals.

April 23, 2001

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court refuses to stay the case for a review by that Court.

April 24, 2001

By order of trial court Judge Greer, and upon issuance of a 2nd DCA mandate, Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube is removed

April 26, 2001

The Schindlers file an emergency motion with Judge Greer for relief from judgment based upon new evidence, which includes a claim that a former girlfriend of Michael Schiavo will testify that he lied about Terri Schiavo’s wishes; Judge Greer dismisses the motion as untimely. Also on this date, the Schindlers file a new civil suit that claims that Michael Schiavo perjured himself when he testified that Terri Schiavo had stated an aversion to remaining on life support. Pending this new civil trial, Circuit Court Judge Frank Quesada orders Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube to be reinserted.

April 30, 2001

Michael Schiavo files an emergency motion with the 2nd DCA to allow the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube.

May 9, 2001

The 2nd DCA announces a date for the hearing of oral arguments regarding Michael Schiavo’s motion of April 30, 2001.

June 25, 2001

Arguments in 2nd DCA regarding Michael Schiavo’s motion of April 30, 2001.

July 11, 2001

The 2nd DCA remands the case back to Judge Greer. (1) The 2nd DCA informs the Schindlers that they must address both their desire to have new evidence heard and their perjury claim against Michael Schiavo within the original guardianship proceeding; further, the Schindlers are instructed to file a new motion for relief from judgment in the guardianship proceeding. (2) The 2nd DCA instructs Judge Greer to weigh the Schinders’ new evidence in making a new determination of what Terri Schiavo would have wanted. (3) The 2nd DCA denies Michael Schiavo’s request to discontinue the PEG tube.

In re Schiavo, 792 So. 2d 551 (2nd DCA 2001).

7-11-01 DCA Order

August 7, 2001

After the 2nd DCA remands the case back to Judge Greer, he again finds that Michael Schiavo may remove Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube on August 28.

August 10, 2001

Judge Greer denies the Schindlers' motion (1) to have their own doctors examine Terri Schiavo, (2) to remove Michael Schiavo as her guardian, and (3) to disqualify himself from the proceedings.

August 17, 2001
Judge Greer delays the removal of Terri Schiavo's PEG tube until October 9 in order to allow the Schindlers time to appeal.

October 3, 2001
The 2nd DCA delays the removal of the PEG tube indefinitely.

October 17, 2001

The 2nd DCA rules that 5 doctors should examine Terri Schiavo to determine if she can improve with new medical treatment. The Schindlers and Michael Schiavo are to choose 2 doctors each, and the court is to appoint a doctor. The appeals court also affirms Greer’s denial of the motion to disqualify himself.

In re Schiavo, 800 So. 2d 640 (2nd DCA 2001).

10-17-01 DCA ruling

November 1, 2001

The 2nd DCA denies Michael Schiavo’s motion to rehear the case.

December 14, 2001

Michael Schiavo petitions the Florida Supreme Court to stay the October 17, 2001 ruling of the 2nd DCA. He states that he and the Schindlers will attempt to mediate the dispute in lieu of further litigation.

12-05-01 Michael Schiavo’s Notice of Appeal to the Florida Supreme Court

12-14-01 Michael Schiavo’s Motion to Stay DCA’s Ruling.

December 19, 2001

Attorneys meet with a mediator to determine which tests doctors should run on Terri Schiavo.

January 10, 2002

State Supreme Court stays all legal proceedings pending mediation; it orders attorneys to report on the status of mediation in sixty days.

1-10-02 SC Order of Stay

February 13, 2002

Mediation between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo fails.

2-13-02 Notice that Mediation failed

March 14, 2002

The Florida Supreme Court denies Michael Schiavo’s petition to review the 2nd DCA’s ruling allowing 5 doctors to examine Terri Schiavo.

In re Schiavo, 816 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 2002) (Table, No. SC01-2678)

2-13-02 Michael Schiavo’s Jurisdictional Petition

2-13-02 Michael Schiavo’s Petition to Stay ruling of 2nd DCA (10/17/01).

2-22-02 Court’s Order of Stay pending its final decision

3-01-02 Schindler’s Jurisdictional Brief

3-13-01 Michael Schiavo’s Motion to Strike

3-14-01 Order Denying Schiavo’s Petition

3-14-01 Order to Strike

October 12-22, 2002

The trial court holds a new hearing on new potential medical treatments.

November 15, 2002

The Schindlers contend that Michael Schiavo might have abused Terri Schiavo and this abuse led to her condition. They ask the court for more time to collect evidence, and to remove Michael Schiavo as guardian.

11-15-02 Petition to remove MS as guardian

November 22, 2002

Judge Greer rules that Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube should be removed January 3, 2003.

In re Schiavo, 2002 WL 31817960 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Nov. 22, 2002) (No. 90-2908-GB-003)

Nov22 2002 TC trialctorder11-02.txt

December 13, 2002

Judge Greer stays his November 22 ruling: Terri Schiavo should not have her PEG tube removed until an appeals court can rule on the case.

December 23, 2002

The 2nd DCA denies a motion Michael Schiavo filed seeking permission to remove the PEG tube.

June 6, 2003

The 2nd DCA, affirming Judge Greer’s November 2002 ruling, concludes that Michael Schiavo can remove Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube on October 15.

In re Schiavo, 851 So. 2d 182 (2nd DCA 2003) (No. 2D02-5394), rehearing denied (July 9, 2003), review denied 855 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2003).

6-06-03 Court Opinion

July 9, 2003

The 2nd DCA refuses to reconsider its decision.

August 22, 2003

The Florida Supreme Court declines to review the decision.

Schindler v. Schiavo, 855 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2003) (Table, No. SC03-1242)

7-24-03 Notice of Schindlers' Appeal

7-31-03 Michael Schiavo’s Motion to Vacate

Court Order denying Motion to Vacate

8-07-03 Schindler's Petition for a Supreme Court Review

8-13-03 Michael Shiavo’s Response to Petition for Review

8-18-03 Schindlers motion for a Stay

8-19-03 Court Orders Schiavo to make a Respond for the Motion for Stay

8-20-03 Shiavo’s Response to Motion for Stay

8-22-03 Court Order denying Review and Motion for Stay

August 30, 2003

Terri Schiavo’s parents file a federal lawsuit challenging the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube. Schiavos’ petition (D). Schindler v. Schiavo, Civil Action No. 8:03-CV-1860-T-26-T-TGW

September 17, 2003

Judge Greer orders the removal of the PEG tube to take place on October 15, 2003. He also rejects the Schindlers’ request that Terri Schiavo be given therapy to learn how to eat without the tube.

9-17-03 Court Order

October 7, 2003

Governor Jeb Bush files a federal court brief in support of the Schindlers’ effort to stop the removal of the PEG tube.

October 10, 2003

Federal Court Judge Richard Lazzara rules that he lacks the jurisdiction to hear the federal case.

October 14, 2003

The 2nd DCA refuses to block Judge Greer’s order to remove the PEG tube.

October 15, 2003

Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube is once again removed.

October 17, 2003

The Florida Circuit Court in Pinellas County and the First District Court of Appeal refuse to grant a request made by the “supporters” of the Schindlers to direct Governor Jeb Bush to intervene in the Schiavo case.

October 19, 2003

The Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. files a federal court lawsuit that claims that the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube is abuse and neglect.

Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. v. Schiavo, No. 8:03-CV-2167-T-23EAJ

October 20, 2003

The Florida House of Representatives passes a bill, “Terri’s Law,” that allows the governor to issue a “one-time stay in certain cases.”

HouseBill35-E.pdf

October 21, 2003

The Florida Senate passes the bill; Governor Bush issues an executive order directing reinsertion of the PEG tube and appointing a guardian ad litem for Terri Schiavo.

Schiavo Controversy Fla_ Gov_ Exec_ Order No_ 03-201.htm

Statements by some House members

October 21, 2003

Michael Schiavo files a state-court lawsuit arguing that “Terri’s Law” is unconstitutional and seeking an injunction to stop the reinsertion of the PEG tube; the court requests briefs on the Constitutional arguments about “Terri’s Law.”

10-21-03 Schiavo Injunction

Amicus Brief from House Speaker Byrd (B)
Schiavo v. Bush. No. 03-008212-CI-20 (Cir. Ct. Pinellas County, Florida).

October 21, 2003

The federal court denies the motion for a temporary restraining order filed in the lawsuit of the Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc.

Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. v. Schiavo, 2003 WL 23305833, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 291 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2003).

10-21-03 US District Court Order

October 21, 2003

Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube is reinserted.

October 22 2003

David Demeres, Chief Judge for the Pinellas County Circuit Court, orders both the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo to agree within 5 days on an independent guardian ad litem as required under the Governor’s order. (“Terri’s Law” directs: “Upon issuance of the stay, the chief judge of the circuit court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the patient to make recommendations to the Governor and the court.”)

Schiavo's Response

Schindlers' Response

October 28, 2003

President George W. Bush praises the way his brother, Governor Jeb Bush, has handled the Schiavo matter.

Transcript of Rose Garden Press Conference

October 29, 2003

Michael Schiavo files court papers in his state-court lawsuit, arguing that “Terri’s Law” is unconstitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union has joined Michael Schiavo.

Michael Schiavo petitioner brief

October 31, 2003

Judge Demers appoints Dr. Jay Wolfson as Terri Schiavo’s guardian ad litem. Dr. Wolfson holds both medical and legal degrees; he is also a public health professor at the University of South Florida. He is supposed to represent Terri Schiavo’s best interest in court, but he has no authority to make decisions for her.

10-31-03 GAL Appointment

November 4, 2003

Governor Jeb Bush asks Circuit Court Judge W. Douglas Baird to dismiss Michael Schiavo’s suit (filed October 21, 2003) that challenges “Terri’s Law.”

November 8, 2003

Judge Baird denies Governor Bush’s motion to dismiss the state-court suit.

November 10, 2003

Governor Bush appeals Judge Baird’s decision; the filing of the appeal has the effect of staying the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube.

November 14, 2003

Judge Baird vacates the stay.

11-14-03 Order vacating stay.

November 14, 2003

In response to Judge Baird’s lifting the stay, the 2nd DCA issues an indefinite stay.

November 19, 2003

Governor Bush files a petition to remove Judge Baird.

11-19-03 Petition

November 21, 2003

Florida Sens. Stephen Wise and Jim Sebesta introduce legislation (S692) that would require persons in persistent vegetative states to be administered medically supplied nutrition and hydration in the absence of a living will, regardless of family beliefs about what those patients would have wanted. The measure is withdrawn from consideration on April 16, 2004.

Bill to require sustenence when no living will exists

December 1, 2003

Jay Wolfson, guardian ad litem, concludes in his report that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state with no chance of improvement.

Wolfson's Report

Governor Bush's response to Wolfson's report

December 10, 2003

The 2nd DCA refuses to remove Judge Baird, who is the presiding judge in the state-court lawsuit filed October 21, 2003.

Bush v. Schiavo, 861 So. 2d 506 (2nd DCA 2003) (No. 2D03-5244)

12-10-03 Court Opinion

January 5, 2004

The Schindler family petitions the Pinellas County Circuit Court to reappoint Jay Wolfson, the guardian ad litem.

1-05-04 Schindlers petition to reappoint GAL

January 8, 2004

Judge Demers rejects the request to reappoint the guardian ad litem, citing the pending court decisions over the constitutionality of “Terri’s Law” as reason to wait on any action.

1-08-04 Order denying reinstatement of GAL

February 13, 2004

The 2nd DCA reverses Judge Baird’s ruling (in the case filed October 21, 2003) that denied the Schindlers permission to intervene in Michael Schiavo’s Constitutional challenge to “Terri’s Law.” The 2nd DCA explains that Judge Baird did not follow proper procedure. The court also gives permission to Governor Bush to question several witnesses who Judge Baird previously had ruled could not offer any relevant testimony.

Bush v. Schiavo, 866 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2004) (on intervention); 866 So. 2d 136 (2nd DCA 2004) (on request to take depositions). (Case No. 2D03-5783).

bushschiavo2 13 04 opn.pdf

2-13-04 Opinion allowing parents to intervene

March 12, 2004

Judge Baird again rejects the Schindlers’ request to intervene in Michael Schiavo’s suit that questions the constitutionality of “Terri’s Law.”

March 20, 2004
Pope John Paul II addresses World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations and Pontifical Academy for Life Congress on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas." His remarks spark widespread interest and controversy.
Pope's address

March 29, 2004

Nursing home workers discover 4 “fresh puncture wounds” on one arm and a fifth wound on the other arm; the workers state that a hypodermic needle appears to have caused the wounds. Attendants discovered the wounds shortly after the Schindlers visited Terri Schiavo for 45 minutes. Toxicology reports indicate that no substance was injected into Terri Schiavo. Clearwater police later conclude that the marks might have been made by a device used to move Ms. Schiavo and, in any case, that no evidence of abuse or other wrongdoing could be found.
St. Petersburg Times report (May 15, 2004)

March 29, 2004

Judge Greer denies a motion filed by the Schindlers seeking to have Michael Schiavo defend himself in a hearing; they allege that he is violating a 1996 court order that requires him to share a sufficient amount of Terri Schiavo’s medical information. Michael Schiavo claims that he has shared an adequate amount of information through attorneys.

April 16, 2004
S692 is withdrawn from consideration in the Florida Legislature.
S692 History

April 23, 2004
The 2nd DCA rules that the Pinellas County trial court has jurisdiction to hear and is the proper venue for the case Michael Schiavo has filed against Governor Bush asserting that "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional.

2nd DCA Jurisdictional ruling

May 6, 2004

Pinellas Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird rules that "Terri's Law," sought and signed by Gov. Bush and approved by the Legislature on October 21, 2003, is unconstitutional. The governor appeals the ruling.

Judge Baird's order

June 1, 2004

The 2nd DCA grants a motion from attorneys for Michael Schiavo to send the case directly to the Florida
Supreme Court and bypass a lower-court review. Meanwhile, attorneys for Gov. Bush file a motion asking that all appeals be halted until the issue of whether Michael Schiavo has the authority to fight the governor on his wife's behalf is resolved.

Tallahassee Democrat report

June 16, 2004

Florida's Supreme Court, pointing to "a question of great public importance requiring immediate resolution by this Court," accepts jurisdiction and sets oral arguments for August 31, 2004.

Florida Supreme Court order

June 30, 2004

2nd DCA affirms Judge Baird's March 12 ruling denying the Schindlers the ability to intervene in the lawsuit over the constitutionality of "Terri's Law."

July 19, 2004
The Schindlers file a motion in the Circuit Court for Pinellas County seeking relief from judgment in Schindler v. Schiavo. Based in part upon the recent statement by Pope John Paul II, they argue that the orders mandating withdrawal of the PEG tube from Terri and authorizing Michael to challenge the constitutionality of "Terri's Law" violate her "free exercise of her religious beliefs [and] her right to enjoy and defend her own life and, in fact, imperil her immortal soul."
Relief from judgment motion
Appendix to motion (seven exhibits)

July 27, 2004

National group of bioethicists files amicus brief "in support of Michael Schiavo as guardian of the person."

Bioethicists' amicus brief

August 31, 2004

The Florida Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the lawsuit over the
constitutionality of "Terri's Law."

Streaming video of the proceedings, archived by WFSU at Florida State University

Transcript

St. Petersburg Times report

August 31, 2004
Circuit Judge George Greer, opposed for re-election by an attorney who was known to oppose Greer's rulings in the Schiavo case, is re-elected by a large margin.

St. Petersburg Times report

September 23, 2004

Florida's Supreme Court, unanimously affirming the trial court order, declares "Terri's Law" unconstitutional.
Supreme Court ruling

October 4, 2004

Governor Bush files a motion and then an amended motion for rehearing and clarification of the Florida Supreme Court opinion issued on September 23, 2004

Amended motion for rehearing and clarification

October 21, 2004
Florida Supreme Court denies Governor Bush's amended motion for rehearing and clarification, as well as a motion seeking permission to file a second amended motion for rehearing and clarification. The Court issues a mandate.

Order

October 22, 2004

In Pinellas County, at the trial-court level, Judge Greer denies the motion filed by the Schindlers on July 19, 2004. He also stays the removal of her PEG tube until December 6, 2004.
Order Denying Motion
Order Granting Stay

October 25, 2004
Governor Bush files a motion with the Florida Supreme Court asking that it recall the mandate it issued on October 22 because he will be filing a petition for certiorari regarding this case with the United States Supreme Court.
Motion to Recall Mandate

Appendix to Motion

October 27, 2004
Florida Supreme Court grants Governor Bush's motion asking that it recall the mandate issued on October 22. Proceedings in the trial and all appellate courts in the case of Bush v. Schiavo are stayed until November 29, 2004.

Order Recalling Mandate

November 22, 2004

In the guardianship proceeding in Pinellas County, the Schindlers appeal from Judge Greer’s October 22 order denying their motion for relief from judgment.
Brief Seeking Review

December 3, 2004
Governor Bush files a petition for certiorari, seeking review of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision regarding Terri’s law, with the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. Supreme Court Docket
Petition for Writ of Certiorari

December 29, 2004
2nd DCA, without opinion, denies the Schindlers' November 22 appeal from Judge Greer's order refusing to reopen the guardianship proceeding.

January 10, 2005
The Schindlers again ask Judge Greer to remove Michael Schiavo from his judicial appointed post of Terri’s guardian.

January 13, 2005
The Schindlers file two motions – one in the 2d DCA, asking it to reconsider its decision of December 29, 2004, and a second in the trial court guardianship proceeding, asking Judge Greer once again to prevent withdrawal of nutrition and hydration until the 2d DCA does so.

January 24, 2005
The United States Supreme Court refused to grant review of the case in which the Florida Supreme Court struck down “Terri’s Law” as unconstitutional.

February 7, 2005
Florida's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services cites the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation for failing to register with the state to solicit donations.

February 11, 2005
In Pinellas County, Judge Greer denies the Schindlers' motions, filed January 10 and 13, 2005. The order authorizing withdrawal of the PEG tube remains in effect, although implementation is stayed pending the outcome of currently pending appeals.

February 15, 2005
The Schindlers ask the 2nd DCA to stay the mandate issued when it refused to hear their most recent appeal.

February 16, 2005
Randall Terry, founder of the pro-life activist organization Operation Rescue, appears with the Schindlers at a news conference, vowing protest vigils against removal of the PEG tube.

February 18, 2005
The Schindlers again petition Judge Greer in Pinellas County for reconsideration of the order of February 11, 2005, in which the court upheld its judgment, made in the year 2000, that the PEG tube should be removed.

February 18, 2005
Florida Representatives Baxley Brown; Cannon; Davis, D.; Flores; Goldstein; Lopez-Cantera; Murzin; Quinones; Traviesa introduced H 701 in the Florida Legislature. H 701, mirroring S. 692 (introduced in October 2003 and withdrawn in April 2004), would require maintenance of medically supplied nutrition and hydration in incapacitated persons in most instances.
H.701

February 21, 2005
The 2d DCA denies the Schindlers’ motion of February 15, 2005, clearing the way for removal of the PEG tube when the current stay expires on February 22, 2005. Judge Greer schedules a hearing on the Schindlers’ motion of February 18, 2005, for February 23, 2005.

February 22, 2005
Judge Greer stays removal of the PEG tube until 5 p.m. on February 23, 2005 (after he hears argument on the motion filed by the Schindlers on February 18, 2005).

February 23, 2005
After a hearing, Judge Greer extends the stay preventing removal of the PEG tube until 5 p.m. on February 25, 2005, to permit time to issue an order detailing his decisions regarding matters discussed at the hearing. Officials from Florida’s Department of Children and Families (DCF) move to intervene in the case, but Judge Greer denies the motion to intervene at the hearing.
DCF Motion to Intervene

February 25, 2005
Judge Greer denies the motion before him and orders that, “absent a stay from the appellate courts, the guardian, Michael Schiavo, shall cause the removal of nutrition and hydration from the ward, Theresa Schiavo, at 1 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2005.”
Order Denying Stay

February 26, 2005
The St. Petersburg Times reports that a Vatican cardinal spoke on Vatican Radio opposing removal of the PEG tube.
St. Petersburg Times article

February 28, 2005
The Schindlers file a number of motions with Judge Greer, addressing a range of issues. They also indicate that they will appeal the judge's decision of February 25, 2005. Judge Greer denies some of the motions but agreed to set a hearing date to consider others.
St. Petersburg Times article

March 7, 2005
The Schindlers appeal Judge Greer's February 25, 2005 order to the 2nd DCA.
Bioethicists from six Florida universities submit an analysis of H701.
Bioethicists' analysis

March 8, 2005
U.S. Rep. David Weldon (R.-Fla.) introduces in the United States House of Representatives H.R. 1151, titled the Incapactitated Persons' Legal Protection Act. The bill would permit a federal court to review the Schiavo matter through a habeas corpus lawsuit.
H.R. 1151

March 9, 2005
The Florida House Health Care Regulation Committee considers H.701, voting to approve a Council/Committee Substitute 701 instead of the original version.
Council/Committee Substitute 701

March 10, 2005
Judge Greer issues order denying Florida's Department of Children and Families the right to intervene in the guardianship case.

March 14, 2005
The Judiciary Committee in the Florida House considers H.701, voting to approve another Committee substitute for the original bill. The Sun-Sentinel reports that the House and the Senate have agreed that this bill will come to a vote.
Second Committee Substitute 701

March 15, 2005
The Florida House Health & Families Council considers and approves the second committee substitute H.701.

The Florida Senate Judiciary Committee passes S.804, providing that medically supplied nutrition and hydration cannot be “suspended from” a person in a PVS if: (1) the purpose of the suspension is “solely to end the life of” a person in a PVS; (2) a conflict exists on the issue of suspension of medically supplied nutrition and hydration among the persons who could be proxy decisionmakers for that person under Florida law; and (3) the person in the PVS had not executed a written advance directive or designated a health care surrogate.
Senate Bill 804

March 16, 2005
The 2d DCA affirms Judge Greer’s orders and refuses to stay the scheduled March 18 withdrawal of the PEG tube.
2d DCA Opinion

The U.S. House of Representatives, by voice vote, passes H.R. 1332, the Protection of Incapacitated Persons Act of 2005. This bill would amend federal law to provide for removal of certain cases to federal court from state court, rather than authorizing use of the federal habeas corpus remedy to obtain federal court review, as H.R. 1151 would have.
H.R. 1332

March 17, 2005
The Florida House of Representatives approves H.701, after some amendments.
House-Engrossed H.701

The Florida Senate votes down S.804.
History of S.804

Florida’s Department of Children and Families (DCF) petitions the Florida Supreme Court for relief, and the Florida Supreme Court denies the petition.
DCF All Writs Petition
Florida Supreme Court order

The U.S. Senate passes a “private bill” applying to the Schiavo case but differing from H.R. 1332. The U.S. Senate website, at www.senate.gov, explains a “private bill” as follows: “A private bill provides benefits to specified individuals (including corporate bodies). Individuals sometimes request relief through private legislation when administrative or legal remedies are exhausted. Many private bills deal with immigration–granting citizenship or permanent residency. Private bills may also be introduced for individuals who have claims again the government, veterans benefits claims, claims for military decorations, or taxation problems. The title of a private bill usually begins with the phrase, "For the relief of. . . ." If a private bill is passed in identical form by both houses of Congress and is signed by the President, it becomes a private law.”
U.S. Senate Bill 653 ES
Orlando Sentinel article

The Schindlers ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, but the U.S. Supreme Court denies their petition.
Schindlers’ Petition to U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court Denial

March 18, 2005
The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform issues five subpoenas: one commanding Michael Schiavo to appear before it and bring with him the “hydration and nutrition equipment” in working order; three commanding physicians and other personnel at the hospice to do the same; and one commanding Terri Schiavo to appear before it. The subpoenas would require that the PEG tube remain in working order until at least the date of testimony, March 25, 2005. The subpoenas are included as appendices to the U.S. House All Writs Petition (see just below).

The Committee on Government Reform also moves to intervene in the guardianship litigation before Judge Greer and asks Judge Greer to stay his order requiring removal of the PEG tube. Judge Greer denies the motions.
U.S. House Motion to Intervene
U.S. House Motion for Stay

The Committee on Government Reform files an emergency all-writs petition with the Florida Supreme Court, effectively seeking reversal of Judge Greer’s denial of its motions. The Florida Supreme Court denies this petition.
U.S. House All Writs Petition

The House Committee on Government Reform asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Florida Supreme Court’s denial of its petition. Justice Kennedy, acting for the Court, denies the application for relief.
U.S. Supreme Court Docket, Case No. SC05-449

The PEG tube is removed in mid-afternoon. This is the third time the tube has been removed in accordance with court orders.

The Schindlers, as “next friends” of their daughter, file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal district court in the Middle District of Florida. That court dismisses the case for lack of jurisdiction and refuses to issue a temporary restraining order because “there is not a substantial likelihood that [the Schindlers] will prevail on their federal constitutional claims.”
Schindlers' Habeas Corpus Petition

U.S. House Speaker Tom DeLay and other Republican House members discuss the Schiavo case.
DeLay on Schiavo via C-Span

March 19-20, 2005
The U.S. Senate delays its Easter recess and works on Saturday to reach a compromise with the House on a bill, S.686, closely resembling the special bill it passed on March 17. On Palm Sunday (which holiday is frequently noted in debate), it then passes S.686 and the U.S. House of Representatives returns from Easter recess for a special session to debate S.686.
U.S. Senate Compromise Bill S.686

March 20, 2005
House Republicans hold news conference.
Video via C-Span

House Democrats hold news conference.
Video via C-Span

March 21, 2005
Shortly past 12:30 a.m., the U.S. House of Representatives votes 203-58 to suspend its rules and pass S.686.
Congressional Debate on S.686
Roll call vote on S.686

President Bush signs S.686 at 1:11 a.m.

Federal District Court Judge James D. Whittemore, Middle District of Florida (in Tampa), hears arguments on the Schindlers' motion that he order re-insertion of the PEG tube while the lawsuit they will assert pursuant to S.686 is litigated.
Motion for Injunction
Response to Motion for Injunction
Government's Statement of Interest

March 22, 2005
Federal District Court Judge Whittemore refuses to order re-insertion of the PEG tube.
Federal Court Order

The Schindlers appeal Judge Whittemore’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Schindlers’ 11th Circuit Appeal
Schindlers' Appeal Exhibits
Michael Schiavo’s Response
Government’s Statement of Interest

The Schindlers file an amended complaint in the federal district court, adding a number of new claims.
Amended Complaint

A look at Capitol Hill politics in Schiavo case.
NPR "Morning Edition" broadcast

March 23, 2005
The U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 vote, denies the Schindlers' appeal.
11th Circuit Opinion

United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, acting en banc (as a whole), refuses to rehear the Schindlers’ appeal, leaving intact the court’s ruling earlier in the day.
En Banc Rehearing Denial

House Democrats and Republicans hold news conferences.
Video via C-Span

The Florida Senate, by a vote of 21-18, again refuses to pass S.804. This bill was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 15, 2005.
Senate Bill 804
History of S.804

Florida Governor Jeb Bush reports that a neurologist, Dr. William Cheshire, claims that Ms. Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state. The governor asks the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) to obtain custody of Ms. Schiavo in light of allegations of abuse. Judge Greer holds a hearing on the matter.
DCF Motion to Intervene
Dr. Cheshire's Affidavit

The Schindlers file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Schindlers’ Supreme Court Petition
Respondents’ Brief

Judge Greer issues a restraining order prohibiting DCF from removing Ms. Schiavo from the hospice or otherwise re-inserting the PEG tube.

The Schindlers ask again for a restraining order in federal court.
Second Motion for Restraining Order
Memorandum in Support of Motion

Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives ask the U.S. Supreme Court to file a “friend of the court” brief.
U.S. Supreme Court Docket, Case No. 04A825

March 24, 2005
The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear the Schindlers’ case.
U.S. Supreme Court Order

The Schindlers file a Second Amended Complaint, adding several claims, in the federal court case. Count X, titled “Right to Life,” alleges a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to life because removing the PEG tube is “contrary to [Ms. Schiavo’s] wish to live.”
Second Amended Complaint

The trial court (Judge Whittemore) schedules a hearing for 6 p.m. and orders supplemental briefs on Count X.
Whittemore Order

Judge Greer denies DCF’s motion to intervene. DCF appeals Judge Greer’s order. Judge Greer vacates the automatic stay upon appeal. The 2d District Court of Appeal refuses to reinstate the stay. The Florida Supreme Court dismisses a motion on this matter because it “fails to invoke” the court’s jurisdiction.
DCF Motion in Florida Supreme Court (describing events)
Exhibits to Motion
Florida Supreme Court Order

March 25, 2005
Judge Whittemore denies the Schindlers’ second motion for an order re-inserting the PEG tube.
District Court 2d TRO Order

The Schindlers appeal Judge Whittemore’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit affirms. The Schindlers announce that they will pursue no more federal appeals.
Schindlers’ Brief
Responsive Brief
Second Eleventh Circuit Opinion

The Schindlers file an emergency motion attempting to convince Judge Greer to reinsert the PEG, at least temporarily until the Eleventh Circuit decides their appeal. The motion contends her family heard her try to verbalize "I want to live," according to news reports.

DCF appeals Judge Greer's March 23 denial of its first motion to intervene to the 2d DCA.
DCF Appeal

March 26, 2005
Judge Greer denies the Schindlers' motion of March 25, 2005.
Judge Greer's Order

The Schindlers appeal to the Florida Supreme Court to reverse Judge Greer's refusal to reinsert the PEG tube, but the Florida Supreme Court refuses to do so, citing a lack of jurisdiction.
Schindlers' Petition
Florida Supreme Court Order

News agencies report the arrest on March 25 of Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview, N.C., for offering $250,000 for the killing of Michael Schiavo and another $50,000 for the death of Judge Greer.
CNN Report

The Schindlers advise supporters demonstrating around the hospice to return home to spend the Easter holiday with their families.

March 27, 2005
In an interview on CNN, Governor Bush says: "I cannot violate a court order. I don't have power from the U.S. Constitution, or the Florida constitution for that mater, that would allow me to intervene after a decision has been made."
CNN Report

Last updated 27-Mar-2005

Since then two more Federal appeals were denied.

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm (has links to the actual court documents)

bikerchic

03-31-2005, 09:58 AM

Terry's gone, GOD BLESS HER!

estranged4life

03-31-2005, 10:03 AM

my Mother is no longer the newest Angel on the block :o

R.I.P. Terry, You're finally free :nod:

strandinthewind

03-31-2005, 10:10 AM

May God put her soul at ease :angel:

This is just a sad, sad thing with no winners at all. I hope the husband can live with his decisions and I hope her family can come to terms with it.

This is just awful and my heart is broken for this poor woman and all like her. I truly hope the doctors were correct and she had no clue what was going on.

I cannnot stress strongly enough the importance of putting your intentions in writing. It does not matter your age or any thoughts of it could never happen to you. You never know. If this ordeal taught us anything, it is that it is unnecessary to put your loved ones through this legal bickering.

estranged4life

03-31-2005, 10:17 AM

I cannnot stress strongly enough the importance of putting your intentions in writing. It does not matter your age or any thoughts of it could never happen to you. You never know. If this ordeal taught us anything, it is that it is unnecessary to put your loved ones through this legal bickering.

with yer statement, We (Deb & myself) were planning on doing exactly what you mentioned before the March 21 disaster which cost me my Mother (Which, of course, May end up in a court of law)...We will definitely be taking care of a living will this week, If not today.

bikerchic

03-31-2005, 10:51 AM

Your icon gives the impression of excitement.
Maybe not so much excited as I am relieved and happy for her peace :nod:

GateandGarden

03-31-2005, 10:56 AM

Maybe not so much excited as I am relieved and happy for her peace :nod:I feel the same way.

irishgrl

03-31-2005, 10:57 AM

I fervently PRAY the Government stays OUT of personal life choices such as this one and others...

Terri's situation certainly had the effect of helping people define their priorities...

strandinthewind

03-31-2005, 11:12 AM

I think a little levity in this sad sad situation is needed - so - a friend of mine sent me this faux living will:

Subject: Living Will

I, _________________________ (fill in the blank), being of
sound mind and body, do not wish to be kept alive indefinitely by
artificial means.

Under no circumstances should my fate be put in the hands of
peckerwood politicians who couldn't pass ninth-grade biology if their
lives depended on it. If a reasonable amount of time passes and I
fail to sit up and ask for a cold beer and the score of the Red Sox
game, it should be presumed that I won't ever get better.

When such a determination is reached, I hereby instruct my
spouse, children, and/or attending physicians to pull the plug, reel
in the tubes and call it a day. If they won't do it, go out on the
street and get some random passerby.

Under no circumstances shall the members of the Legislature
enact a special law to keep me on life-support machinery. I don't
care how many fundamentalist votes they're trying to scrounge for
their run for the presidency; they should play politics with someone
else's life and leave me alone to die in peace. It is my wish that
these boneheads mind their own damn business, and pay attention
instead to the health, education and future of the millions of
Americans who aren't in a permanent coma. It just goes to show you
how sick you have to be in this country to get Congress to pay
attention to your health care.

I couldn't care less if a hundred thousand religious zealots
send e-mails to legislators in which they pretend to care about me or
demonstrate outside my hospital with their bleeding Jesuses and
sandwiches with Mary's face on them. I don't know these people, and
I certainly haven't authorized them to preach and crusade on my
behalf. And the Pope should mind his own friggin' business, too.

And if any of my family goes against my wishes and tries to
turn my case into a political cause, I hereby promise to come back
from the grave and make his or her existence a living hell.

______________________________________
Signature

______________________________________
Witness

GateandGarden

03-31-2005, 11:33 AM

estranged4life

03-31-2005, 11:36 AM

SuzeQuze

03-31-2005, 11:46 AM

I need all the levity I can get and that was priceless :lol:

I also see the mighty burning Shrub is on TV giving his 2 cents...Hey Bush, F**K YOU & the horse ya rode in on!!!! Man, My liberal buds here are starting to rub off on me :lol:

:laugh: That's perfect, "peckerwood politicians". That's my favorite part. :lol:

Mad4stevie

03-31-2005, 12:00 PM

strandinthewind

03-31-2005, 12:10 PM

God bless you, Terri. You are now free from your suffering.

I want to know the specifics that I am hearing about her family being barred from being with Terri in her last moments. Apparently, they were told to leave the hospice by Schiavo about 10 minutes before she died. I hope to God that it is not true.

It is unclear if they knew she was dying right there and then. Most are reporting the nurses were coming in to perform an assessment, which Mr. Schiavo as her guardian and husband wanted to be present for. Then she died. So, it is possible that the dying then was not foreseen and just happened though she was close, etc.

I think this will be spun to portray Mr. Schaivo in a bad light. But, they could not all be in the same room without killing each other. Plus, he was her husband :shrug: The whole thing is just so messed up. I mean that it came to this makes me so angry at the world and reaffirms my faith in getting it all in writing beforehand.

gldstwmn

03-31-2005, 12:24 PM

I also see the mighty burning Shrub is on TV giving his 2 cents...Hey Bush, F**K YOU & the horse ya rode in on!!!!

I had to leave the room after about three sentences. :lol:

Mad4stevie

03-31-2005, 12:45 PM

It is unclear if they knew she was dying right there and then. Most are reporting the nurses were coming in to perform an assessment, which Mr. Schiavo as her guardian and husband wanted to be present for. Then she died. So, it is possible that the dying then was not foreseen and just happened though she was close, etc.

I think this will be spun to portray Mr. Schaivo in a bad light. But, they could not all be in the same room without killing each other. Plus, he was her husband :shrug: The whole thing is just so messed up. I mean that it came to this makes me so angry at the world and reaffirms my faith in getting it all in writing beforehand.

This whole thing IS messed up. GET IT IN WRITING, PEOPLE!!

The legal/moral/political issues in this case have affected me in a way that few other issues like this have. It is hard for me not to personalize this in one way or another because my youngest sister is mentally disabled due to lack of oxygen during her birth. I have always been so protective of her because I have seen her treated so many times as less of a person due to her disability. She will never read, drive or be able to live independently, which is something that she NEVER asked for. This is just a hard, hard issue. :distress:

DrummerDeanna

03-31-2005, 12:45 PM

wondergirl9847

03-31-2005, 12:53 PM

DrummerDeanna

03-31-2005, 01:04 PM

Deanna, have you learned nothing....Indians have no souls.[/South Park from last night]

Sesly though, I haven't heard about any shooting, and that is pretty fricked up not to be talking about it on the news. :(

Like you haven't heard about it at all?

This kid killed ten people including a teacher - then killed himself...I'll dig up a link when I get back from a non Terri Shiavo press conference :)

Nixxxed

03-31-2005, 01:17 PM

I can't take all this media blitz about Terri Shiavo - yes, it's very sad, yes it's unfortunate - but there are bigger and more important issues that need to be covered right now.

The Red Lake School shooting!?! Have we heard anything about that today? No - if this had happened in a high-class White area - you bet we'd be bombarded with it -but it happened on a reservation - and poor Native Americans were involved...we hear nothing :mad:

I think there is a real inequity in television media - and today I am down on my knees thanking the Lord above that I don't work in television :nod:
You're SO right.

I live about a mile and a half from the BP gasoline refinery that exploded in Texas City, TX, last week. In case you missed the story (because it was basically buried under pointless Schiavo coverage) - 15 people were KILLED here last week, and more than 100 were injured. I haven't heard a single word about this from Bush (or any other high-ranking official for that matter).

My town is not only in mourning, but also in shock because of this refinery's increasingly suspect safety record (4 accidents in less than a year, 2 deadly). Not to mention they have been in a years-long battle with the city, county and school district because they don't seem to want to pay their taxes.

Yet the government is silent on this issue. The only thing I can think is that they're afraid their acknowledgement of the disaster and safety issues will cause gas prices to rise.

msLinds

03-31-2005, 01:22 PM

I am coming out of my lurking just to pass on this web site link, I found listed on another web site, about information about having" Living wills"
It was very sad about that woman in florida.I feel the goverment and
Bush should have kept his nose out that woman's business, and her right to decide whether she wanted to be kept alive or not.I also don't believe her family.As for her parents and brother even though I feel sorry for them, I lost all respect for them when they asked that Fundie NUTCASE rightwing,homophobic antichoice, violent, fanatic Randall Terry From Operation Rescue to be their spokesperson. It said alot about that woman's familys politics and views when they got that sick fundie nutcase who has been in jail many times for his harrasment and violence
and stalking of prochoice workers and docters.He was even in federal prison for his actions against President Clinton.It is federal offense to physically threaten any president whether you agree with their politics or not.Terri Schiavo is finally at peace.I know as soon I can,I am having my living will all filled and signed, plus special instructions added to make sure my own family does not try to ever keep me alive or the goverment or some some so called prolife groups.The same way I feel these antichoice people need to keep their noses out a womans right to choice to have a abortion I am 47 years old female and I am not waiting any longer to make sure my exact wishs are legally down on paper.Please pass on this link about living wills.They don't cost money to get the papers one needs to
have a living will done.But some people might want their lawyer if they
have one and can afford it to look at the papers to.I don't post really, I only lurk all the time but I am still a Fleetwood Mac and Stevie and Lindsey Fan. I get alot of enjoyment and love reading all your theads, thanks everyone.Everyone take care and have a great upcoming summer.I am still waiting for Lindsey Buckingham's solo album.lol
Linds

Chain keep US Together.

here is the web link

http://www.uslivingwillregistry.com/forms.shtm

http://www.uslivingwillregistry.com/

:mad: :p :wavey: :blob1: :blob2: :] :D :laugh: :xoxo: :thumbsup:

strandinthewind

03-31-2005, 01:32 PM

I had to leave the room after about three sentences. :lol:

He is exact quote is:

"I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected."

I mean that is utter crapola. What he means is you better be a heterosexual Christian with a ton of money - or you do not qualify - See no gay marriage or civil unions bill, killing of babies in Texas because they cannot afford health care, and so on and so on and so on :mad:

estranged4life

03-31-2005, 01:34 PM

to turn on the TV actually...Way to much death in my life as of late and seeing more is having a bad effect on me :shrug:

strandinthewind

03-31-2005, 01:37 PM

This whole thing IS messed up. GET IT IN WRITING, PEOPLE!!

The legal/moral/political issues in this case have affected me in a way that few other issues like this have. It is hard for me not to personalize this in one way or another because my youngest sister is mentally disabled due to lack of oxygen during her birth. I have always been so protective of her because I have seen her treated so many times as less of a person due to her disability. She will never read, drive or be able to live independently, which is something that she NEVER asked for. This is just a hard, hard issue. :distress:

I know. My grandmother was a stoke victim and was essentially a child for about 5 years. Fortunately, she could provide care other than state care. But, people still abused her a little (some a lot) and that was just sick. I mean when she was in the home a man patient there tried to crawl in bed with her :eek: The home was like well that happens for time to time and fortunately she did not know what was going on. Well, she knew because she would refer to it every now and then in a vague manner. So, it just ticks me off when people dismiss the lesser of us. i do think Mrs. Schiavo's case was different in that she was essentially brian dead - but even then the thought of making the decision to starve her to death (semantics aside, that is what happened) without knowing exactly how she felt is just horrifying and must have been for Mr. Schiavo even though he met his burden of proof and obviously believed in his task and his care for her was good.

SuzeQuze

03-31-2005, 01:37 PM

He is exact quote is:

I mean that is utter crapola. What he means is you better be a heterosexual Christian with a ton of money - or you do not qualify - See no gay marriage or civil unions bill, killing of babies in Texas because they cannot afford health care, and so on and so on and so on :mad:

I hate him. What a

HYPOCRITE.

SuzeQuze

03-31-2005, 01:38 PM

to turn on the TV actually...Way to much death in my life as of late and seeing more is having a bad effect on me :shrug:

Leave it off. There isn't anything worthwhile on there right now anyway. Especially with daytime TV, oy vez.

GateandGarden

03-31-2005, 01:40 PM

I am coming out of my lurking just to pass on this web site link, I found listed on another web site, about information about having" Living wills"
It was very sad about that woman in florida.I feel the goverment and
Bush should have kept his nose out that woman's business, and her right to decide whether she wanted to be kept alive or not.I also don't believe her family.As for her parents and brother even though I feel sorry for them, I lost all respect for them when they asked that Fundie NUTCASE rightwing,homophobic antichoice, violent, fanatic Randall Terry From Operation Rescue to be their spokesperson. It said alot about that woman's familys politics and views when they got that sick fundie nutcase who has been in jail many times for his harrasment and violence
and stalking of prochoice workers and docters.He was even in federal prison for his actions against President Clinton.It is federal offense to physically threaten any president whether you agree with their politics or not.Terri Schiavo is finally at peace.I know as soon I can,I am having my living will all filled and signed, plus special instructions added to make sure my own family does not try to ever keep me alive or the goverment or some some so called prolife groups.The same way I feel these antichoice people need to keep their noses out a womans right to choice to have a abortion I am 47 years old female and I am not waiting any longer to make sure my exact wishs are legally down on paper.Please pass on this link about living wills.They don't cost money to get the papers one needs to
have a living will done.But some people might want their lawyer if they
have one and can afford it to look at the papers to.I don't post really, I only lurk all the time but I am still a Fleetwood Mac and Stevie and Lindsey Fan. I get alot of enjoyment and love reading all your theads, thanks everyone.Everyone take care and have a great upcoming summer.I am still waiting for Lindsey Buckingham's solo album.lol
Linds

Chain keep US Together.

here is the web link

http://www.uslivingwillregistry.com/forms.shtm

:wavey: Thanks for coming out of lurking. I enjoyed your post and agree on all accounts. Thanks for posting the link. :)

msLinds

03-31-2005, 01:48 PM

Your Welcome.
Linds

http://www.uslivingwillregistry.com/

Chain Keep US Together

Its important to remember that nobody falls into
a simple set of labels. Lindsey

Imagine all the ways to cope, I close my eyes that
gives me hope,It cures the silence. Stevie

Life is what happens when your busy making other plan. John Lennon

:) :blob2: :blob1: :wavey: :D :nod: :xoxo: ;)

gldstwmn

04-01-2005, 01:31 AM

I mean that is utter crapola. What he means is you better be a heterosexual Christian with a ton of money - or you do not qualify - See no gay marriage or civil unions bill, killing of babies in Texas because they cannot afford health care, and so on and so on and so on :mad:

Doesn't apply to 100,000 dead Iraqis either.

msLinds

04-01-2005, 01:22 PM

Mari

04-01-2005, 02:58 PM

hey lindshttp://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/042.gif

don't know this Tom Delay guy, we got some news about this case here, but of course not to the extent you guys get it.
To be honest it creeps me out to think about making a will, like you're summoning your own death or something :o But I could deal with that when I filled out my donorcard, so.. it is a good thing to do.

SuzeQuze

04-01-2005, 03:13 PM

I thought about whether I should post this or not.Its very sad about what happened to that woman.But for the years on the Ledge, that I have been reading and had been posting. Everyone else post want ever they want here.I have allready send out this e mail to Tom Delay useing this link.Please pass this web site link on to others.

http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/?itemid=969

:nod: ;)

Feel free to post such things. Someone already posted the "will" but not the source. :laugh: Tom Delay is so evil. For those unaware he has been behind many dirty tricks to get and keep republicans in office the latest being commiting election fraud in '04. He is the house majority leader but he was also in charge of elections in his home state (TX). Conflict of interest? Ya think? He is currently under investigation by the ethics committee.

Also, his family chose to pull the plug on his father when he was partially brain dead after a tram accident, thus displaying his hypocracy in speaking out about Schiavo. Not to mention that the family then sued the maker of a component of their tram (for their summer home I believe) and won money (he is trying to push legislation to limit this type of lawsuit). Yep, a real "winner".

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 01:25 PM

Turns out she was as brain dead as they thought and all those videos of her eyes moving did not indicate she had any actual awareness. I am very happy that that was the case because I think that means she knew not that she suffered for years, not just the starvation. Sadly, the parents were wrong to assert on the basis of very questionable medical opinion that this poor woman could get better with therapy, which her husbad tried for years.
____________________________________________________________

Schiavo autopsy finds no sign of trauma

LARGO, Florida (AP) -- An autopsy on Terri Schiavo backed her husband's contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding that she had massive and irreversible brain damage and was blind, the medical examiner's office said Wednesday. It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused.

But what caused her collapse 15 years earlier remained a mystery. The autopsy and post-mortem investigation found no proof that she had an eating disorder, as was suspected at the time, Pinellas-Pasco Medical Examiner Jon Thogmartin said.

Autopsy results on the 41-year-old brain-damaged woman were made public Wednesday, more than two months after her death March 31 ended a right-to-die battle between her husband and parents that engulfed the courts, Congress and the White House and divided the country.

She died from dehydration, Thogmartin said. He said she did not appear to have suffered a heart attack and there was no evidence that she was given harmful drugs or other substances prior to her death.

He said that after her feeding tube was removed, she would not have been able to eat or drink if she had been given food by mouth, as her parents' requested.

"Removal of her feeding tube would have resulted in her death whether she was fed or hydrated by mouth or not," Thogmartin told reporters.

He also said she was blind, because the "vision centers of her brain were dead," and that her brain was about half of its expected size when she died 13 days following the feeding tube's removal.

Michael Schiavo said his wife never would have wanted to be kept alive in what court-appointed doctors concluded was a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. The Schindlers, however, doubted she had any such end-of-life wishes and disputed that she was in a vegetative state.

The medical examiner's conclusions countered a videotape released by the Schindlers of Terri Schiavo in her hospice bed. The video showed Schiavo appearing to turn toward her mother's voice and smile, moaning and laughing. Her head moved up and down and she seemed to follow the progress of a brightly colored Mickey Mouse balloon.

They believed her condition could improve with therapy.

However, doctors said her reactions were automatic responses and not evidence of thought or consciousness, and Thogmartin's report went farther.

"The brain weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of a human brain," he said. "This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."

Thogmartin said the autopsy report was based on 274 external and internal body images, and an exhaustive review of Terri Schiavo's medical records, police reports and social services agency records.

He said hospital records of her 1990 collapse showed she had a diminished potassium level in her blood. But he said that did not prove she had an eating disorder, because the emergency treatment she received at the time could have affected the potassium level.

Testimony in a 1992 civil trial indicated that she probably was suffering from an eating disorder that led to a severe chemical imbalance.

Over the years, the Schindlers had sought independent investigation of their daughter's condition and what caused it. Abuse complaints to state social workers were ruled unfounded and the Pinellas state attorney's office did not turn up evidence of abuse.

Calls seeking comments Wednesday from the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, were not immediately returned.

Speaking before the report was issued, Felos, said the Schindlers continue to engage in a "smear campaign against Michael to deflect the real issues in the case, which were Terri's wishes and her medical condition."

During the seven-year legal battle, federal and state courts repeatedly rejected extraordinary attempts at intervention by Florida lawmakers, Gov. Jeb Bush, Congress and President Bush on behalf of her parents.

Supporters of the Schindlers harshly criticized the courts. Many religious groups, including the Roman Catholic Church, said the removal of sustenance violated fundamental religious tenets.

About 40 judges in six courts were involved in the case at one point or another. Six times, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to intervene. As Schiavo's life ebbed away following the final removal of her feeding tube, Congress rushed through a bill to allow the federal courts to take up the case, and President Bush signed it March 21, but federal courts refused to step in.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/15/schiavo.autopsy.ap/index.html

jannieC

06-15-2005, 01:38 PM

Thank you for posting this.

The Tower

06-15-2005, 01:39 PM

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 01:41 PM

The Tower

06-15-2005, 01:46 PM

Don't hold your breath :mad:
Any member of congress with balls (are you listening Henry Waxman?) should bring this up every single time those piece of **** republicans mention ANYTHING about fiscal responsibility, the evils of big government and/or state's rights/privacy rights.

Politics is a pendulum and the abuses and hypocrisy of the current majority are the worst in history.

Good thing that payback is a mother****ing bitch from hell. Just you wait repugs, your time will come.

jannieC

06-15-2005, 01:47 PM

seeker007nmss

06-15-2005, 01:48 PM

...religious....stubborn ignorance. .

Oh come on, give the religious right some slack. Afterall, the Catholic Church finally admitted that Galieo was correct..... over 250 years later! They should finally accept this say.....in 2255 or so. :confused:

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 01:50 PM

Not only will we not see any apologies, but I suspect we'll still see some denial. :shrug:

They are going to ignore this and if questioned say they wanted to "err on the side of life in the Culture of Death." FU&KERS~~~~

The Tower

06-15-2005, 01:54 PM

They are going to ignore this and if questioned say they wanted to "err on the side of life in the Culture of Death." FU&KERS~~~~
That's fine if they want to "err", however, I expect to see a bill from the U.S. government to the Schaivos for the court costs for all this bull**** based on their piece of **** religiosity.

gldstwmn

06-15-2005, 01:57 PM

Stupid ****ing religious mother****ers.

All that time and tax money wasted on this bull**** because of stubborn ignorance. Where are the apologies from the parents? Where are the apologies from Frist? Where are the apologies from congress??

Hypocrites make me sick to my stomach.

No kidding. For people who are so wound up about the institution of marriage, they should be holding her husband up as some kind of saint. He definitely honored the "in sickness and in health" vow.
Hell, Newt Gingrich dumped his wife when she had cancer.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 01:57 PM

. . . Well, Newt Gingrich dumped his wife when she had cancer.

Honey - he had her sign the papers on her sick bed :eek:

gldstwmn

06-15-2005, 01:58 PM

Any member of congress with balls (are you listening Henry Waxman?) should bring this up every single time those piece of **** republicans mention ANYTHING about fiscal responsibility, the evils of big government and/or state's rights/privacy rights.

Politics is a pendulum and the abuses and hypocrisy of the current majority are the worst in history.

Good thing that payback is a mother****ing bitch from hell. Just you wait repugs, your time will come.

I think it's almost here. :nod:

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 01:58 PM

That's fine if they want to "err", however, I expect to see a bill from the U.S. government to the Schaivos for the court costs for all this bull**** based on their piece of **** religiosity.

Boy, let's see how fast the donations come in for that :rolleyes:

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 02:00 PM

I think it's almost here. :nod:

The signs sure are. Bush has accomplished essentially nothing so far this term and his popularity is down, Frist is ineffective, and people are tiring of the war in Iraq.

ontheEdgeof17

06-15-2005, 02:01 PM

The signs sure are. Bush has accomplished essentially nothing so far this term and his popularity is down, Frist is ineffective, and people are tiring of the war in Iraq.

8 months too late.... :rolleyes:

gldstwmn

06-15-2005, 02:02 PM

Not only will we not see any apologies, but I suspect we'll still see some denial. :shrug:

The spin should be interesting to say the very least.

GateandGarden

06-15-2005, 02:04 PM

Not only will we not see any apologies, but I suspect we'll still see some denial. :shrug:I think you're right. I bet some idiots are going to say that the reports of the autospy are incorrect and that's all part of our corrupt liberal media, right? :rolleyes:

All I could think about when I read that she was blind was that damn video of her supposedly watching that balloon that they showed on TV eighty thousand times. Oh yeah, and the family SOLD that video to people. So, so sad. I might make a pointing of haunting people if they plastered all of that all over TV and the media in general. How humiliating! :mad:

gldstwmn

06-15-2005, 02:04 PM

Honey - he had her sign the papers on her sick bed :eek:
I know! :lol:

The Tower

06-15-2005, 02:06 PM

I think it's almost here. :nod:
I was going to elude to that, but I felt like I didn't want to jinx it. :o

I really hoping that the dumb**** American electorate wakes up- but I've been hoping for that for years and years with little change.

Alls I can say is:

"Please, please, PLEASE stay healthy John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsberg (I love her!), Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Anthony Kennedy!!!!!! We need you!"

seeker007nmss

06-15-2005, 02:07 PM

I was going to elude to that, but I felt like I didn't want to jinx it. :o

I really hoping that the dumb**** American electorate wakes up- but I've been hoping for that for years and years with little change.

Alls I can say is:

"Please, please, PLEASE stay healthy John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsberg (I love her!), Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Anthony Kennedy!!!!!! We need you!"

Just so Hillary doesn't run. She just bugs me. :nod: (yes I know she can't get on the Supreme court)

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 02:07 PM

I was going to elude to that, but I felt like I didn't want to jinx it. :o

I really hoping that the dumb**** American electorate wakes up- but I've been hoping for that for years and years with little change.

Alls I can say is:

"Please, please, PLEASE stay healthy John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsberg (I love her!), Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Anthony Kennedy!!!!!! We need you!"

We need O'Conner just as badly as she has single handedly saved more than one decision with her swinging ways, which I highly doubt any replacement would have.

gldstwmn

06-15-2005, 02:08 PM

The signs sure are. Bush has accomplished essentially nothing so far this term and his popularity is down, Frist is ineffective, and people are tiring of the war in Iraq.

Wait 'til Rehnquist announces his retirement.

gldstwmn

06-15-2005, 02:09 PM

8 months too late.... :rolleyes:

They rigged it. :shrug:

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 02:10 PM

Wait 'til Rehnquist announces his retirement.

Well, Frist sold that issue to get the three lower courts nominees to a vote. I guess he could break that deal, but I do not see him doing that AND when he made that deal, he all but ruined any chance he may have had to be Pres. because the anti-choice people will NEVER forgive him. So, we shall see.

gldstwmn

06-15-2005, 02:11 PM

I was going to elude to that, but I felt like I didn't want to jinx it. :o

I really hoping that the dumb**** American electorate wakes up- but I've been hoping for that for years and years with little change.

Alls I can say is:

"Please, please, PLEASE stay healthy John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsberg (I love her!), Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Anthony Kennedy!!!!!! We need you!"

And I was going to wish for the good health of the four liberal justices and the one swing voter.

GateandGarden

06-15-2005, 02:12 PM

Just so Hillary doesn't run. She just bugs me. :nod: (yes I know she can't get on the Supreme court)You don't want me to run? :shrug:
:D

gldstwmn

06-15-2005, 02:13 PM

Just so Hillary doesn't run. She just bugs me. :nod: (yes I know she can't get on the Supreme court)

Hillary's running. No doubt.
Now what am I missing about Hillary and the USSC? Why can't she serve?

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 02:13 PM

Hillary's running. No doubt.
Now what am I missing about Hillary and the USSC? Why can't she serve?

Hillary can run for Pres. and she can be nominated to the USSC :shrug: Was that what you were asking?

seeker007nmss

06-15-2005, 02:14 PM

You don't want me to run? :shrug:
:D

:lol: Yes, please run! The Ledgie Party needs to get into power so we can FORCE - Stevie to tell us whether she said "TARA" or not in that song! :]

gldstwmn

06-15-2005, 02:15 PM

Hillary can run for Pres. and she can be nominated to the USSC :shrug: Was that what you were asking?

Yes. That's what I thought. Did I misread Seeker's post?

sparky

06-15-2005, 02:16 PM

I really hoping that the dumb**** American electorate wakes up- but I've been hoping for that for years and years with little change.

Fat chance. They could be firing up the ovens and most people wouldn't say a thing. Anyone who disagrees with the Republican Taliban basically gets muzzled and shut down. I don't know what it's gonna take, but it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

seeker007nmss

06-15-2005, 02:17 PM

Yes. That's what I thought. Did I misread Seeker's post?

I just meant it would be very, very, unlikely she would would be a canidate for the supreme court.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 02:18 PM

Yes. That's what I thought. Did I misread Seeker's post?

I took it to mean she would not be confirmed. BTW - I think she still has her law license so that is not an issue.

GateandGarden

06-15-2005, 02:19 PM

:lol: Yes, please run! The Ledgie Party needs to get into power so we can FORCE - Stevie to tell us whether she said "TARA" or not in that song! :]Okay! :) We'll 1) legalize gay marriage, 2) abolish the death penalty, 3) make the wealthy pay higher taxes, 5) nationalize health care, and 5) force Stevie to rack her brains and somehow remember what the hell she was saying in "Seven Wonders"

My time in office will be fun! :blob2:

Who wants to be my vice pres?

Krista, will you be my first lady? :laugh:

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 02:19 PM

I just meant it would be very, very, unlikely she would would be a canidate for the supreme court.

I also think she would never take such a position, though I think she would be fab in it, because the Justices tend to keep out of the public eye and for good reason.

seeker007nmss

06-15-2005, 02:19 PM

I took it to mean she would not be confirmed. BTW - I think she still has her law license so that is not an issue.

I think we need a ledgie in office. :nod:

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 02:21 PM

. . . make the wealthy pay higher taxes, . . . .

Better yet, let's just make them pay 100% of everything they have and will ever have :rolleyes:

Communist :mad:

:p :p :p

gldstwmn

06-15-2005, 02:21 PM

Well, Frist sold that issue to get the three lower courts nominees to a vote. I guess he could break that deal, but I do not see him doing that AND when he made that deal, he all but ruined any chance he may have had to be Pres. because the anti-choice people will NEVER forgive him. So, we shall see.

The way I look at it, whomever they nominate can't be much more conservative than Rehnquist. OTOH, he does seem to have stong convictions about free speech issues which is especially important in our current political climate. So I am worried about that.
As for the deal that was made For Pryor, Rogers Brown and Owens, I agree that right now it looks as though that dashed Frist's presidential fantasies. One would almost have to wonder if he wasn't set up to make way for someone else.
I still wouldn't put it past the R's to try and break that deal.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 02:22 PM

I think we need a ledgie in office. :nod:

I agree - of course I have a great nominee :wavey: :wavey: Sadly, those tapes from my South American holiday in college may prevent any confirmation :laugh:

GateandGarden

06-15-2005, 02:22 PM

Better yet, let's just make them pay 100% of everything they have and will ever have :rolleyes:

Communist :mad:

:p :p :pOh well. Many of us have some Commie characteristics, right? Maybe not you, though.

gldstwmn

06-15-2005, 02:24 PM

I just meant it would be very, very, unlikely she would would be a canidate for the supreme court.

Actually, she would be an excellent candidate further down the road if the was a Dem in office to nominate her.
I don't know if a Senator ever sat on the SC though.

GypsySorcerer

06-15-2005, 02:25 PM

Okay! :) We'll 1) legalize gay marriage, 2) abolish the death penalty, 3) make the wealthy pay higher taxes, 5) nationalize health care, and 5) force Stevie to rack her brains and somehow remember what the hell she was saying in "Seven Wonders"

My time in office will be fun! :blob2:

Who wants to be my vice pres?

Krista, will you be my first lady? :laugh:

On the condition I don't have to host any tea parties. :) ;)

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 02:25 PM

Oh well. Many of us have some Commie characteristics, right? Maybe not you, though.

It just aggravates me to no end that people actually believe that anyone should pay anything over 20% (social security, medicare, income, etc.) TOTAL in tax. I think the proper method is to scrutinze govt. contracts and get rid of the minority business that really isn't getting the contract for five times the cost, the $50 hammer, the pork barrell committees, etc. But, no one really wants to do that. It is always "screw the rich they can afford it and are inherently evil anyway" :rolleyes:

Note - rant not directed at Hillary :cool:

gldstwmn

06-15-2005, 02:27 PM

Oh well. Many of us have some Commie characteristics, right? Maybe not you, though.

I prefer Socialist. :laugh:

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 02:27 PM

I prefer Socialist. :laugh:

How Nazi party of you :laugh: :rolleyes: :laugh:

sparky

06-15-2005, 02:31 PM

It just aggravates me to no end that people actually believe that anyone should pay anything over 20% (social security, medicare, income, etc.) TOTAL in tax. I think the proper method is to scrutinze govt. contracts and get rid of the minority business that really isn't getting the contract for five times the cost, the $50 hammer, the pork barrell committees, etc. But, no one really wants to do that. It is always "screw the rich they can afford it and are inherently evil anyway" :rolleyes:

Note - rant not directed at Hillary :cool:

I'd happily pay more taxes.

I sometimes feel guilty when I get 10 grand or more refund every year. Not too guilty though. :lol:

seeker007nmss

06-15-2005, 02:32 PM

Actually, she would be an excellent candidate further down the road if the was a Dem in office to nominate her.
I don't know if a Senator ever sat on the SC though.

Wouldn't she have to sit on the lower courts for quite some time to even be considered? I wouldn't think she would want to start a new career at this point.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 02:33 PM

I'd happily pay more taxes. . . .

Infidel :laugh:

Seriously, these crazy liberals in Congress and some here want to charge a 70% tax on the rich :eek: That is just insane :laugh:

gldstwmn

06-15-2005, 02:34 PM

How Nazi party of you :laugh: :rolleyes: :laugh:

I had the French Socialist party in mind actually. :p

seeker007nmss

06-15-2005, 02:34 PM

I'd happily pay more taxes.

I sometimes feel guilty when I get 10 grand or more refund every year. Not too guilty though. :lol:

??? You need to adjust your deductions a bit if they take out that much to refund. OMG!!! :eek: You figured out away to deduct MAC/STEVIE expenses?!?! Let's us know how!!!!! :lol:

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 02:35 PM

Wouldn't she have to sit on the lower courts for quite some time to even be considered? I wouldn't think she would want to start a new career at this point.

No, that is not a requirement.

gldstwmn

06-15-2005, 02:36 PM

Wouldn't she have to sit on the lower courts for quite some time to even be considered? I wouldn't think she would want to start a new career at this point.

Not necessarily. Hillary likes a challenge, IMO.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 02:36 PM

I had the French Socialist party in mind actually. :p

Well considering those wine sodden fools caved so early in WWII and then cried out "Save me US Save Me" - I submit they are one in the same :laugh: But, I have to say, their system is not bad.

seeker007nmss

06-15-2005, 02:36 PM

I had the French Socialist party in mind actually. :p

*Shivers* French Socialism. I may have to immigrate to New Zealand. :nod:

gldstwmn

06-15-2005, 02:39 PM

*Shivers* French Socialism. I may have to immigrate to New Zealand. :nod:

Now, now. It's not that bad. And we're also talking about tendencies, not a complete transformation.

seeker007nmss

06-15-2005, 02:43 PM

Now, now. It's not that bad. And we're also talking about tendencies, not a complete transformation.

I still want to visit New Zealand. :nod: I say do a flat tax. 10%. No deductions. No loopholes. Tax everyone the same, including corporations and churches. :nod: Everyone could do their taxes in about 30 seconds. The money you save from IRS costs could be put back into Social Security fund. :nod:

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 02:46 PM

I still want to visit New Zealand. :nod: I say do a flat tax. 10%. No deductions. No loopholes. Tax everyone the same, including corporations and churches. :nod: Everyone could do their taxes in about 30 seconds. The money you save from IRS costs could be put back into Social Security fund. :nod:

Now we're talkin'

The Tower

06-15-2005, 02:46 PM

It just aggravates me to no end that people actually believe that anyone should pay anything over 20% (social security, medicare, income, etc.) TOTAL in tax.
I pay more than 20% and I'm certainly not in the "rich" category.

I think the proper method is to scrutinze govt. contracts and get rid of the minority business that really isn't getting the contract for five times the cost, the $50 hammer, the pork barrell committees, etc. But, no one really wants to do that.
I do. That in conjunction with a progressive tax rate and getting the military money issues under control would make it so that everyone in America would have a good standard of living.

It is always "screw the rich they can afford it and are inherently evil anyway" :rolleyes:
Oh, puh-leeeeze..... What a load of horse****! And you know it. The "rich" have been screwing the rest of this country for some time now, not the other way around.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 02:48 PM

I pay more than 20% and I'm certainly not in the "rich" category.

That is currently defined as 200,000 per year per household.

Oh, puh-leeeeze..... What a load of horse****! And you know it. The "rich" have been screwing the rest of this country for some time now, not the other way around.

and two wrongs make a right?

Sugar

06-15-2005, 02:50 PM

GateandGarden

06-15-2005, 02:50 PM

I do. That in conjunction with a progressive tax rate and getting the military money issues under control would make it so that everyone in America would have a good standard of living.I think I agree with Chris.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 02:51 PM

I think I agree with Chris.

if that progressive tax rate capped at 20% - perhaps.

GateandGarden

06-15-2005, 02:51 PM

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 02:52 PM

Well I can tell you what the conservative columnist at my paper said today about her being blind while we were watching the news conference:

"OH. So are we going to believe a bunch of guys in white coats or are we going to believe our eyes. (referring to that he "saw" her watching the balloon on that video tape).

And people complain about the blindness of the Clinton-faithful. :rolleyes:

What gets me is that few moments we saw on that tape was part of hours of them trying to elicit a response to no avail. That was nothing more than them seeing her eyes moving and then moving the balloon in time with her eyes.

dissention

06-15-2005, 02:55 PM

Fat chance. They could be firing up the ovens and most people wouldn't say a thing. Anyone who disagrees with the Republican Taliban basically gets muzzled and shut down. I don't know what it's gonna take, but it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Precisely what I've been saying. Bush's popularity is down? Big deal. His popularity was at the same level when he supposedly "won" the election, it made no difference. Anyone who thinks the tide is actually turning this early on in the game is delusional.

dissention

06-15-2005, 02:57 PM

On the condition I don't have to host any tea parties. :) ;)

And that you don't have to look perpetually constipated and Stepford-ish like Miss Laura.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 02:58 PM

Precisely what I've been saying. Bush's popularity is down? Big deal. His popularity was at the same level when he supposedly "won" the election, it made no difference. Anyone who thinks the tide is actually turning this early on in the game is delusional.

I think if the opposition gets a candidate who is not scared to take on W instead of playing into Rove's every move, W will go down hard. Again, it was Kerry's election to lose and he lost it that way, which says nothing favorable about W's declining popularity.

dissention

06-15-2005, 03:00 PM

and two wrongs make a right?

And we should continue to allow the rich to keep screwing everyone else who isn't as "fortunate" as them? I can ask them politely to please remove their d*cks from our collectives asses, but it ain't going to do any good, is it?

The Tower

06-15-2005, 03:01 PM

That is currently defined as 200,000 per year per household.
I ain't there, my dear. It would be nice, but I ain't there.

and two wrongs make a right?
I don't think that a progressive tax is a wrong.

If Joe Blow's yearly income is $50,000 with a 10% tax rate, the gov't gets $5,000 and Joe Blow gets $45,000. If John Smith's yearly income is $500,000 with a 30% tax rate, the gov't gets $150,000 and John Smith gets $350,000.

Living on $350,000 a year is a hell of a lot easier than living on $45,000 a year.

I pay a HUGE percent of my money to the government for all the various taxes. I would be willing to pay even more if the government would actually do some good with that money. Affordable health care and fighting the prescription drug companies would be a nice place to start.

dissention

06-15-2005, 03:01 PM

Again, it was Kerry's election to lose and he lost it that way

Oy. Where is that little violin?

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 03:04 PM

If Joe Blow's yearly income is $50,000 with a 10% tax rate, the gov't gets $5,000 and Joe Blow gets $45,000. If John Smith's yearly income is $500,000 with a 30% tax rate, the gov't gets $150,000 and John Smith gets $350,000.

Living on $350,000 a year is a hell of a lot easier than living on $45,000 a year.

Perhaps true, but that does not address my issue which is no one at all should ever have to pay 30% to any govt. and I mean 30% total (FICA, medicare, state, income, etc.) That is just assinine and promotes govt. waste, which brings me to:

I would be willing to pay even more if the government would actually do some good with that money. Affordable health care and fighting the prescription drug companies would be a nice place to start.

Who wouldn't. But that is never gonna happen until they have less money to piss away :nod:

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 03:05 PM

Oy. Where is that little violin?

W was beatable and in fact Kerry almost beat him, fraud aside :shrug: Imagine what a stronger candidate might have done.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 03:07 PM

And we should continue to allow the rich to keep screwing everyone else who isn't as "fortunate" as them? I can ask them politely to please remove their d*cks from our collectives asses, but it ain't going to do any good, is it?

We should do neither is what I am saying. But, you apparently think it is okay to screw the rich but not the poor. How is that fair?

Sugar

06-15-2005, 03:08 PM

What gets me is that few moments we saw on that tape was part of hours of them trying to elicit a response to no avail. That was nothing more than them seeing her eyes moving and then moving the balloon in time with her eyes.

But they will cling to any shred with a white-knuckle grip. It's like if they admit they were wrong on anything, any one thing, the whole house of cards will fall. It's how this administration does business.

When the fall comes, it's gonna be big...

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 03:09 PM

But they will cling to any shred with a white-knuckle grip. It's like if they admit they were wrong on anything, any one thing, the whole house of cards will fall. It's how this administration does business.

When the fall comes, it's gonna be big...

ITA

thankfully, I think it is on its way :nod:

dissention

06-15-2005, 03:11 PM

We should do neither is what I am saying. But, you apparently think it is okay to screw the rich but not the poor. How is that fair?

They've screwed over the poor all this time, maybe it would be sweet justice for them to finally get hit where it hurts: in their wallets. This country is all about the wealthy making money off the backs of the poor and then using that money to keep the poor impoverished so that they can continue to build and keep their wealth. To be perfectly frank, I don't give two squirts of duck **** if Mr. Moneybags has to pay even more taxes than he already does because, in the end, he's not going to be scrounging dumpsters for food or worrying about how he's going to feed his three kids based simply on his minimum wage paycheck. He's no going to worry about not having proper healthcare. Call it unfair, it probably is. But I could care less. :D

I make lots of money, more than I should, and I pay lots of taxes. Not as much as I probably should and I wouldn't be opposed to paying more. I don't need all the cash I get.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 03:12 PM

They've screwed over the poor all this time, maybe it would be sweet justice for them to finally get hit where it hurts: in their wallets. This country is all about the wealthy making money off the backs of the poor and then using that money to keep the poor impoverished so that they can continue to build and keep their wealth. To be perfectly frank, I don't give two squirts of duck **** if Mr. Moneybags has to pay even more taxes than he already does because, in the end, he's not going to be scrounging dumpsters for food or worrying about how he's going to feed his three kids based simply on his minimum wage paycheck. He's no going to worry about not having proper healthcare. Call it unfair, it probably is. But I could care less. :D

I think that revenge never works and in the end makes people suffer needlessly. I also think that kind of screw them attitude from both sides is what got us in this mess. but, it will never end I guess.

Sugar

06-15-2005, 03:13 PM

ITA

thankfully, I think it is on its way :nod:

God I hope so.

If only it didn't feel so much like trying to turn a 1966 Cadillac around on a skinny little one-way street. :lol:

The Tower

06-15-2005, 03:13 PM

To be perfectly frank, I don't give two squirts of duck **** if Mr. Moneybags has to pay even more taxes than he already does because, in the end, he's not going to be scrounging dumpsters for food or worrying about how he's going to feed his three kids based simply on his minimum wage paycheck. He's no going to worry about not having proper healthcare. Call it unfair, it probably is. But I could care less. :D
DING DING DING DING DING DINGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!

I love you.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 03:14 PM

. . . I make lots of money, more than I should, and I pay lots of taxes. Not as much as I probably should and I wouldn't be opposed to paying more. I don't need all the cash I get.

Well what's next, the govt. telling people how to spend their money. I am sorry sir, but the govt. has determined that you need only this much to survive -- so please put down that object, you cannot have it as it is not needed. That is a little frightening to me.

dissention

06-15-2005, 03:14 PM

I think that revenge never works and in the end makes people suffer needlessly.

Yup. Them there millionaires and people who make hundreds of thousands yearly are going to needlessly suffer. But, hey, at least they'll be doing it in style with their Gucci and ridiculously extravagant homes.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 03:15 PM

DING DING DING DING DING DINGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!

I love you.

It just amazes me how people are willing to perpetuate hate by doing exactly what they hate to those they hate and then saying they do not care because two wrongs make a right.

The Tower

06-15-2005, 03:18 PM

It just amazes me how people are willing to perpetuate hate by doing exactly what they hate to those they hate and then saying they do not care because two wrongs make a right.
It isn't a wrong and it's not perpetuating hate.

I don't think the idea of wealthy people who have extra giving a little bit of that extra to the government safety net so that those who have nothing can have just a tiny bit is wrong- or hateful.

dissention

06-15-2005, 03:19 PM

DING DING DING DING DING DINGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!

I love you.

I'm touched and the feeling's mutual. ;)

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 03:21 PM

Yup. Them there millionaires and people who make hundreds of thousands yearly are going to needlessly suffer. But, hey, at least they'll be doing it in style with their Gucci and ridiculously extravagant homes.

Define "ridiculously extravagant homes" - I would suggest that to many, no one needs half the stuff you sell them - yet you sell it :shrug: My point is not to scold you, but to point out that the minute someone says "you don't need that" or "you live too high on the hog" watch out - because ya better be willing to have that standard applied to everyone and I can assure you that those dumpster digging impoverished people you were just championing would look on the way you live your life with scorn and disdain - I mean they do not vacation in Maine, they do not have a cool car, they do not have a cool computer, they do not have all the cash they need, etc. :shrug:

Thus, I conclude no one ought to tell anyone how to live lest they be willing to have that harsh light turned on their lives by those less fortunate than they are.

Didn't we get into a big fight about this awhile back and you told me to piss off :laugh: I suspect its coming again :laugh:

dissention

06-15-2005, 03:21 PM

It isn't a wrong and it's not perpetuating hate.

I don't think the idea of wealthy people who have extra giving a little bit of that extra to the government safety net so that those who have nothing can have just a tiny bit is wrong- or hateful.

Especially since so many of the rich are the ones making their money off of the very people who have nothing. These people don't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, yet taxing the rich a bit more to give the poor a somewhat better life is called "unfair"? What do you call the impoverished lives these people lead? Fair?

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 03:22 PM

It isn't a wrong and it's not perpetuating hate.

I don't think the idea of wealthy people who have extra giving a little bit of that extra to the government safety net so that those who have nothing can have just a tiny bit is wrong- or hateful.

I do not either - all I am saying is anything over 20% total is ridiculous. You all are the ones talking about punishing the rich because they have been screwing the poor for years. I think the venom in that statement does nothing to address the problem.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 03:24 PM

Especially since so many of the rich are the ones making their money off of the very people who have nothing. These people don't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, yet taxing the rich a bit more to give the poor a somewhat better life is called "unfair"? What do you call the impoverished lives these people lead? Fair?

Again, I am not saying the poor should not receive help. I have also said many times prior to this that if you make less than say $30,000 a year, you ought not to have to pay any taxes as long as no one abuses how they get to $30,000 a year. All I am saying is no one ought to have to pay more tha 20% total. It is beyond me how that is so offensive to the poor.

The Tower

06-15-2005, 03:27 PM

You all are the ones talking about punishing the rich because they have been screwing the poor for years. I think the venom in that statement does nothing to address the problem.
The statement is yours, my dear.

I never said anything about "punishing" the rich, I just think the rich should stop their "punishing" of the poor. I don't think a progressive tax is punishment- I think it is just and fair.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 03:29 PM

The statement is yours, my dear.

I never said anything about "punishing" the rich, I just think the rich should stop their "punishing" of the poor. I don't think a progressive tax is punishment- I think it is just and fair.

Dissention flat out said it :shrug:

and

I thought you implied it in this exchange:

Strand:

It is always "screw the rich they can afford it and are inherently evil anyway"

Tower:

Oh, puh-leeeeze..... What a load of horse****! And you know it. The "rich" have been screwing the rest of this country for some time now, not the other way around.
_________________________________________________

If I was incorrect :sorry:

Also, all I am saying about a tax is that the highest rate should be 20% total for all taxes - how we get there is open for debate.

SuzeQuze

06-15-2005, 03:30 PM

DING DING DING DING DING DINGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!

I love you.

I love him too. My favorite socialist. :nod: :weep: Seriously, doesn't this just seem logical? It always has to me.

dissention

06-15-2005, 03:32 PM

Define "ridiculously extravagant homes" - I would suggest that to many, no one needs half the stuff you sell them - yet you sell it :shrug: My point is not to scold you, but to point out that the minute someone says "you don't need that" or "you live too high on the hog" watch out - because ya better be willing to have that standard applied to everyone and I can assure you that those dumpster digging impoverished people you were just championing would look on the way you live your life with scorn and disdain - I mean they do not vacation in Maine, they do not have a cool car, they do not have a cool computer, they do not have all the cash they need, etc. :shrug:

No one needs to hire someone to design the decor in their living space, it's a luxury. I would never presume to call it anything different. I have tons of **** that I don't need and I do plenty of things that I don't need to do. Your point? I don't live in an extravagnat home, I live in an apartment that's no different from most. You make it seem that anyone who sympathizes with those who don't have as much as they do is somehow a dirty person. That logic is f*cked up.

Thus, I conclude no one ought to tell anyone how to live lest they be willing to have that harsh light turned on their lives by those less fortunate than they are.

I've already said I'm willing to pay much more taxes than I already do. Raise my taxes, go ahead. I don't spend close to what I make, so I have no need for all of it. The money I make is obscene and I don't keep it all. I've always wanted to open a homeless shelter, as I've said before, and I will one day. I grew up without a lot of things because we were poor, I know the value of a dollar. I worked in a welfare office for several years, I know what people go through and I've seen it firsthand. Forgive me if we have different views on how the less fortunate out there should be treated.

Didn't we get into a big fight about this awhile back and you told me to piss off :laugh: I suspect its coming again :laugh:

Piss off.

sparky

06-15-2005, 03:34 PM

??? You need to adjust your deductions a bit if they take out that much to refund. OMG!!! :eek: You figured out away to deduct MAC/STEVIE expenses?!?! Let's us know how!!!!! :lol:

I already claim 5 on my main job - I should up it to 7.

Well, considering my job, concerts, music, books, travel are all mostly deductible. I see a concert, seeing the set is research. :lol: Ditto movies, architecture, magazines, etc. Plus, all I have to do is have a business meeting on a trip, basically. It's ridiculous.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 03:35 PM

Diss,

You are once again missing my point. I think that the poor should get all the help we can give. That is why I said no tax on the first $30,000 of income - which clearly addresses that problem :shrug: But, I fail to see how a 20% total cap on all taxes in any way hurts the poor, esp. if wasteful spending is stopped. So, stop talking about me saying the poor should not get help, etc., or that I differ with you on that point. I do not.

SuzeQuze

06-15-2005, 03:36 PM

They rigged it. :shrug:

How the hell do they sleep at night?

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 03:37 PM

How the hell do they sleep at night?

In the White House and comfortably with a hole where their heart ought to be.

dissention

06-15-2005, 03:40 PM

Diss,

You are once again missing my point. I think that the poor should get all the hlp we can give. That is why I said no tax on the firdst $30,000 of income. But, I fail to see how a 20% total cap on all taxes in any way hurts the poor, esp. if wasteful spending is stopped. So, stop talking about me saying the poor should not get help, etc., or that I differ with you on that point.

SO WHAT?

You willing to help pay for their healthcare? You willing to help them put food on the table for their kids? You willing to start calling for an end to these offensive welfare laws? Don't make them pay taxes, that sounds wonderful. But what about the other stuff? Raise taxes on the rich and start implementing more services for the poor with those funds.

dissention

06-15-2005, 03:42 PM

I love him too. My favorite socialist. :nod: :weep: Seriously, doesn't this just seem logical? It always has to me.

:laugh:

It seems to logical to a lot of people, but when the rich run the country, logic doesn't matter.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 03:44 PM

SO WHAT?

You willing to help pay for their healthcare? You willing to help them put food on the table for their kids? You willing to start calling for an end to these offensive welfare laws? Don't make them pay taxes, that sounds wonderful. But what about the other stuff? Raise taxes on the rich and start implementing more services for the poor with those funds.

I do not think it requires raising taxes and am a little taken aback that you automatically assume it does. Have you ever looked into wasteful govt. spending. I have and it sickens me to know that all of the money we all give essentially goes to promote that. So, I say stop that first and we'll see how much money the govt. really needs to help everyone. But, to make anyone pay 70% of what they make is insane, which is not the same as saying the poor do not deserve every beak they can get.

dissention

06-15-2005, 03:46 PM

I do not think it requires raising taxes and am a little taken aback that you automatically assume it does. Have you ever looked into wasteful govt. spending. I have and it sickens me to know that all of the money we all give essentially goes to promote that. So, I say stop that first and we'll see how much money the govt. really needs to help everyone. But, to make anyone pay 70% of what they make is insane, which is not the same as saying the poor do not deserve every beak they can get.

Ha. The day we eliminate wasteful government spending is the day monkeys fly out of my arse and fly me to Oz.

And I have not argued that anyone should pay 70% in taxes, that's absurd.

SuzeQuze

06-15-2005, 03:47 PM

Especially since so many of the rich are the ones making their money off of the very people who have nothing. These people don't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, yet taxing the rich a bit more to give the poor a somewhat better life is called "unfair"? What do you call the impoverished lives these people lead? Fair?

That's what I hate the most. The fat cats living off the backs of the little guys. Getting millions of dollars a year while the little guy has no health insurance and in all likelihood works harder (e.g. Walmart). :( It seems that people in senior management of corporations do not feel that they need to try to take care of the people that keep them flush.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 03:49 PM

Ha. The day we eliminate wasteful government spending is the day monkeys fly out of my arse and fly me to Oz..

Then making anyone pay more taxes to support this is insane and does nothing but waste the higher taxes you support :shrug:

And I have not argued that anyone should pay 70% in taxes, that's absurd.

I think you did a long time ago, but for now, what is an adequate figure to rape the people making $200,000 and over with :shrug:

On edit - I think I get 70% from your support of the death tax, which was at 70% I believe. I mean I can see 10 or 15% - but 70% - come on :laugh:

SuzeQuze

06-15-2005, 03:50 PM

In the White House and comfortably with a hole where their heart ought to be.

:laugh: Sons o...

SuzeQuze

06-15-2005, 03:52 PM

Ha. The day we eliminate wasteful government spending is the day monkeys fly out of my arse and fly me to Oz.

And I have not argued that anyone should pay 70% in taxes, that's absurd.

Because the people in charge do not police themselves. But if a light were shone brightly on this then maybe we could force change. Embarrass them into reforming their rediculous spending.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 04:16 PM

Because the people in charge do not police themselves. But if a light were shone brightly on this then maybe we could force change. Embarrass them into reforming their rediculous spending.

And the current administration is the worse ever - and that is saying a lot :eek:

SuzeQuze

06-15-2005, 04:22 PM

And the current administration is the worse ever - and that is saying a lot :eek:

The revolution will not be televised, it's on the radio. By the way, have you checked out Ed Schultz show? I think you would enjoy it because he is liberal but he is also fair and doesn't like to call people names or say things that other lefty talk show hosts will say. I like him, but I like the others as well. http://www.wegoted.com/ He used to be an R and more righty but has changed his ways. :D

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 04:23 PM

The revolution will not be televised, it's on the radio. By the way, have you checked out Ed Schultz show? I think you would enjoy it because he is liberal but he is also fair and doesn't like to call people names or say things that other lefty talk show hosts will say. I like him, but I like the others as well. http://www.wegoted.com/ He used to be an R and more righty but has changed his ways. :D

I will check him out!!!!!!!!!

SuzeQuze

06-15-2005, 04:27 PM

I will check him out!!!!!!!!!

You can stream him right now and he is talking about this!!! Just go to that link. You will love him. His words often remind me of something you would say.

GateandGarden

06-15-2005, 04:33 PM

gldstwmn

06-15-2005, 04:33 PM

Who wouldn't. But that is never gonna happen until they have less money to piss away :nod:

We have the biggest deficit in history now. :shrug:

gldstwmn

06-15-2005, 04:35 PM

gldstwmn

06-15-2005, 04:39 PM

Well what's next, the govt. telling people how to spend their money. I am sorry sir, but the govt. has determined that you need only this much to survive -- so please put down that object, you cannot have it as it is not needed. That is a little frightening to me.

Well, W did tell us to go shopping after 9/11. That was frightening to me. :lol:

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 04:40 PM

Well, W did tell us to go shopping after 9/11. That was frightening to me. :lol:

I think Rove had a secret interest in duct tape :eek:

GateandGarden

06-15-2005, 04:44 PM

Okay, I think that the way Josh expressed his views basically set the stage for several pages of debate instead of a quick one. I don't think Josh's and Jason's views differ too dramatically, but Josh had to be a drama queen so that the whole debate could be unnecessarily long and drawn out.

Jason says that it should not be over 20%. The question is, "Josh, what do you think?" You did say that 70% was ridiculous. So, do you agree with Jason's number or do you think it should be higher? I see lots of banter but actual concrete opinions aren't expressed here, from what I can see.

It's so fun to type what I'm thinking. :D

And then later on I feel like a pushy bitch.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 04:48 PM

GateandGarden

06-15-2005, 04:51 PM

If you can get him to commit to a number - I will be surprised - but he is suuuuucccchhhhhhhh a drama queen - but we love him anyway :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo:Totally. :nod:

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 04:53 PM

We have the biggest deficit in history now. :shrug:

Did I mention no borrowing :eek:

and - I have to wonder how much of that is due to waste - I suggest a third of it.

gldstwmn

06-15-2005, 04:55 PM

How the hell do they sleep at night?

If they have no conscience, then it can't bother them. :shrug:

irishgrl

06-15-2005, 04:58 PM

Schiavo Autopsy Shows Massive Brain Damage By MITCH STACY, Associated Press Writer

LARGO, Fla. - The autopsy released Wednesday on Terri Schiavo backed her husband's contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding she was severely and irreversibly brain-damaged and blind as well. It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused before she collapsed.

Yet medical examiners could not say for certain what caused her sudden 1990 collapse, long thought to have been brought on by an eating disorder.

The findings vindicated Michael Schiavo in his long and vitriolic battle with his in-laws, who insisted her condition was not hopeless and suggested that their daughter was the victim of violence by their son-in-law.

In its report, the medical examiner's office cast doubt on both the abuse and eating disorder theory.

The autopsy results on the 41-year-old woman were made public more than two months after Schiavo died of dehydration on March 31 following the removal of her feeding tube 13 days earlier. The death ended an extraordinary right-to-die battle that engulfed the courts, Congress and the White House.

The autopsy showed that Schiavo's brain had shrunk to about half the normal size for a woman her age and that it bore signs of severe damage.

"This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons," said Pinellas-Pasco County Medical Examiner Dr. Jon Thogmartin, who led the autopsy team. He also said she was blind, because the "vision centers of her brain were dead."

George Felos, attorney for Michael Schiavo, said the findings back up their contentions made "for years and years" that Terri Schiavo had no hope of recovery. He said Michael Schiavo plans to release autopsy photographs of her shrunken brain.

"Mr. Schiavo has received so much criticism throughout this case that I'm certain there's a part of him that was pleased to hear these results and the hard science behind them," Felos said.

Nevertheless, attorney David Gibbs III said Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, continue to believe she was not in a vegetative state and questioned the conclusion that she was blind.

The finding that she was blind counters a widely seen videotape released by her parents of Terri Schiavo in her hospice bed. The video showed Schiavo appearing to turn toward her mother's voice and smile. She moaned and laughed. Her head moved up and down and she seemed to follow the progress of a brightly colored Mickey Mouse balloon.

The parents said the video that showed she was aware of her surroundings, but doctors said her reactions were automatic responses and not evidence of consciousness.

In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the autopsy did nothing to change President Bush's position that Schiavo's feeding tube should not have been disconnected. He had signed a bill, rushed through by Congress in March, in a last-ditch effort to restore her feeding tube. (Can you say STOOPID boys and girls?)
Thogmartin also said Schiavo would not have been able to eat or drink if given food by mouth as the Schindlers wanted after the tube was removed. In fact, he said, she might easily have choked to death if such feedings had been tried.

"Removal of her feeding tube would have resulted in her death whether she was fed or hydrated by mouth or not," Thogmartin told reporters.

The autopsy included 274 external and internal body images and an exhaustive review of Terri Schiavo's medical records, police reports and social services agency records.

Thogmartin said that the autopsy produced no conclusion on what triggered the temporary heart stoppage that caused her collapse and brain damage. He said there was no evidence of drug use, though he cautioned that Schiavo was not tested in 1990 for every conceivable substance that could have been in her blood.

He said there was no proof she suffered from an eating disorder such as bulimia, which can disrupt the body chemistry with lethal effect. The main piece of evidence cited for an eating disorder — the low levels of potassium in her blood in 1990 — could have been caused by the emergency treatment she received at the time, Thogmartin said.

While she had lost more than 100 pounds since high school, Schiavo never confessed to an eating disorder, she did not take diet pills and no one had witnessed her purging food, the medical examiner said.

He also discounted the possibility that she had overdosed on caffeine from drinking large amounts of tea in an effort to keep her weight down.

The cause of death was ruled dehydration from removal of the feeding tube, but the underlying reason for her brain damage was officially listed as "undetermined."

In addition, the autopsy found no traces of morphine in her system at her death, although she had been given two doses in the days before she died. The Schindlers had contended that morphine might have been used to speed their daughter's death.

The Schindlers fought their son-in-law in court over their daughter's fate for nearly seven years, battling to the end with conservatives at their side. Michael Schiavo said his wife never would have wanted to be kept alive artificially in such a condition.

Courts repeatedly rejected extraordinary attempts at intervention by Florida lawmakers, Gov. Jeb Bush, Congress and the president on behalf of her parents.

Experts said that the autopsy demonstrates how difficult it is for people to recover from severe brain damage.

"People should understand that sometimes, for known or unknown reasons, individuals sustain massive brain injury that for which healing is not possible," said Dr. Karen Weidenheim, the chief of neuropathology at Montefiore Medical Center in New York. "Everything that could have been done was done for this lady for 15 years, and this case is very tragic."

___

On the Net:

Pinellas-Pasco Medical Examiner's Office: http://www.co.pinellas.fl.us/forensics

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 05:01 PM

irishgrl

06-15-2005, 05:04 PM

I wonder how long she had been blind? Could it be that when that tape was made she was not? I looked but could not find an answer to that question but did see that her brain was getting, I think, progressively worse over time - so it is possible the blindness was not there from the beginning.

She had no vision, which is different from the muscles moving her eyes in their sockets...some stuff is involuntary and controlled by the brain stem (obviously)

btw, should I have posted this article on a separate thread? I thot I saw a comment/article you posted? but I cant find it now...........

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 05:14 PM

She had no vision, which is different from the muscles moving her eyes in their sockets...some stuff is involuntary and controlled by the brain stem (obviously)

btw, should I have posted this article on a separate thread? I thot I saw a comment/article you posted? but I cant find it now...........

I know - but how long had she been blind notwithstanding the involuntary eye movement. How long ago did that part of her brain die?

This thread is cool to post the article in :cool:

Also, I still feel for the parents. I know they probably thought they were fighting for their daughter's life in any state it was in. That must be heart wrenching - and then they saw these right wing freaks, who I am sure promised them the moon, as a method to save their daughter, I cannot say I would not use every tactic I had to do the same and I do not even have kids.

dissention

06-15-2005, 06:40 PM

GateandGarden

06-15-2005, 07:33 PM

Yeah, because I'm the only drama queen around here who makes debates unnecessarily long and drawn out. :rolleyes:The two of you do make a great pair. And it's a nice picture in light of Curtis' somewhat recent declaration that Jason is a queen, too. :woohoo:

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 08:18 PM

Yeah, because I'm the only drama queen around here who makes debates unnecessarily long and drawn out. :rolleyes:

Boy that sounded like a real clear answer to you question Hillary :laugh: :wavey:

dissention

06-15-2005, 08:23 PM

The two of you do make a great pair. And it's a nice picture in light of Curtis' somewhat recent declaration that Jason is a queen, too. :woohoo:

It wasn't exactly something that needed to be declared, I picked it up at 500 paces. Lupone, Sunset Boulevard, etc. Honey plz. :laugh:

dissention

06-15-2005, 08:24 PM

Boy that sounded like a real clear answer to you question Hillary :laugh: :wavey:

:nod::nod::nod:

I like to keep 'em guessing.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 08:25 PM

:nod::nod::nod:

I like to keep 'em guessing.

Thus, making true the statement that you are a drama queen "who makes debates unnecessarily long and drawn out." :wavey:

For the record, one does not have to be gay to be a drama queen.

dissention

06-15-2005, 08:31 PM

Thus, making true the statement that you are a drama queen "who makes debates unnecessarily long and drawn out." :wavey:

No, it simply makes me mysterious.

For the record, one does not have to be gay to be a drama queen.

But it certainly helps.

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 08:32 PM

No, it simply makes me mysterious.

her eyes - her mystery . . . . :cool: are we marrying soon - just to shock the masses :eek: I mean talk about George and Martha :laugh:

dissention

06-15-2005, 08:34 PM

her eyes - her mystery . . . . :cool: are we marrying soon - just to shock the masses :eek: I mean talk about George and Martha :laugh:

I thought we were Helen and Stanley? :woohoo:

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 08:38 PM

I thought we were Helen and Stanley? :woohoo:

Only on Monday through Friday at noon :nod:

On the weekend and though we can alternate, ordinarily, you are Martha to my George - now who can we get to play the tipsy, drunken, nauseated Sandy Dennis "Honey" role "I want to fly like the WIIIINNDDD" :laugh: My vote is Tower only because I wanna see him twirl in chiffon dressed like Sandy Dennis in a diner :laugh:

SuzeQuze

06-15-2005, 08:53 PM

Only on Monday through Friday at noon :nod:

On the weekend and though we can alternate, ordinarily, you are Martha to my George - now who can we get to play the tipsy, drunken, nauseated Sandy Dennis "Honey" role "I want to fly like the WIIIINNDDD" :laugh: My vote is Tower only because I wanna see him twirl in chiffon dressed like Sandy Dennis in a diner :laugh:

Have you been drinking? ;)

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 08:55 PM

Have you been drinking? ;)

Sadly, NO - but I want one pretty bad right now :laugh: But, I cannot. I have too much to do tommorow and have to be at work at 6:00 a.m. :eek: :cool:

dissention

06-15-2005, 09:02 PM

Have you been drinking? ;)

My sentiments exactly. :lol:

The Tower

06-15-2005, 09:27 PM

I thought we were Helen and Stanley? :woohoo:
I thought you were Harold and Maude.....

On the weekend and though we can alternate, ordinarily, you are Martha to my George - now who can we get to play the tipsy, drunken, nauseated Sandy Dennis "Honey" role "I want to fly like the WIIIINNDDD" :laugh: My vote is Tower only because I wanna see him twirl in chiffon dressed like Sandy Dennis in a diner :laugh:
Step off from the crack pipe, ho!

I would never be the puffed up daughter of a preacher man Mouse who's puff went away one day! As I stated before- I don't do drag. And I don't dance like the wind.

However, I would be happy to volunteer as Martha- considering I already am her.

GEORGE: "Rubbing alcohol for you Martha?"

MARTHA: "Never mix, never worry!"

irishgrl

06-15-2005, 09:33 PM

I know - but how long had she been blind notwithstanding the involuntary eye movement. How long ago did that part of her brain die?

This thread is cool to post the article in :cool:

Also, I still feel for the parents. I know they probably thought they were fighting for their daughter's life in any state it was in. That must be heart wrenching - and then they saw these right wing freaks, who I am sure promised them the moon, as a method to save their daughter, I cannot say I would not use every tactic I had to do the same and I do not even have kids.

Im not sure anyone knows for sure when she became blind...

about the parents, they were in D.E.N.I.A.L. pure and simple. I dont know how I would react in the same position but Im sure I would have accepted medical opinion long before THEY did....Call me a skeptic, but in the end, I think they ENJOYED the notariety of having the Nation's attention focused on them. And to ally themselves with the right wing wacko religious nuts put their credibility in the dumpster as far as IM concerned.

dissention

06-15-2005, 09:35 PM

I thought you were Harold and Maude.....

Don't get officious. You're not yourself when you're officious.

However, I would be happy to volunteer as Martha- considering I already am her.

I was under the impression that you were Sissy Goforth.

"Cool breeze, hot sun, white horse on the sea, and big shot of vitamin B in me!"

irishgrl

06-15-2005, 09:39 PM

Clear as MUD I say, Clear as MUUUUUUUUUUUUD.

I guess ya hadda been there............... :shrug:

sparky

06-15-2005, 10:00 PM

Yeah, because I'm the only drama queen around here who makes debates unnecessarily long and drawn out. :rolleyes:

Yup, yer out there dancing with yourself all night all the time, Billy ! :wavey:

With a menagerie of ladies in waiting in the peanut gallery

sparky

06-15-2005, 10:02 PM

Did I mention no borrowing :eek:

and - I have to wonder how much of that is due to waste - I suggest a third of it.

My theory is that much of the population, and a majority of the government, is essentially operating on credit cards.

SuzeQuze

06-15-2005, 10:05 PM

My theory is that much of the population, and a majority of the government, is essentially operating on credit cards.

You are correct, sir. :nod:

strandinthewind

06-15-2005, 10:06 PM

My theory is that much of the population, and a majority of the government, is essentially operating on credit cards.

Yep! Also, did you know that the Fed. Govt. could not operate without the rev. from Cig. tax alone :eek: