PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court rejects Schaivo Parents appeal



samikeyp
03-24-2005, 12:28 PM
just announced on CNN.com

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/24/schiavo/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected an appeal by the parents of Terri Schiavo to have their severely brain-damaged daughter's feeding tube reinserted.

The court, without comment, refused to intervene after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals twice Wednesday turned down a plea from the parents, Bob and Mary Schindler.

On another legal front, Florida Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge George Greer on Thursday denied a petition of the state Department of Children and Families -- and Gov. Jeb Bush -- to take Schiavo into state custody.

Referring to the Supreme Court, decision, George Felos, an attorney for Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael, said: "Mr. Schiavo and all of us are very grateful for the order of the United States Supreme Court this morning. We hope that that order will effectively end the litigation effort in this case.

"We believe it's time for that to stop ... and that Mrs. Schiavo be able to die in peace."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is responsible for emergency appeals from the 11th Circuit, signed the Supreme Court ruling.

The 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, Georgia, includes Florida, where Terri Schiavo lives in a hospice.

Kennedy referred the appeal to the other eight justices, who declined to get involved.

It was the fifth time the case has been presented to the Supreme Court, which has consistently refused to hear it.

On Friday, lawyers for the House of Representatives filed an appeal asking the justices to intervene in the case. The appeal was denied without comment.

"It appears every legal option has just been exhausted," the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, spokesman for the Schindlers, said after Thursday's Supreme Court decision. "Gov. Bush is now the only practical hope here for Terri Schiavo. We plead with Gov. Bush."

Brother Paul O'Donnell, a spiritual adviser for the Schindlers, said, "their hope is dimming."

"They're very disappointed," he said. "They're in shock. They can't believe this is happening. They hope the governor is going to do something, but this is a severe blow when Terri's life hangs in the balance."

President Bush was described by aides as disappointed Thursday at the Supreme Court's decision. Bush was informed of the court's action while at his Texas ranch.

Schiavo's parents and her husband have been at odds over the woman's care, and the battle has drawn in religious conservatives on the side of the Schindlers to fight Michael Schiavo's efforts to let his wife die, as he says she wanted.

Twenty court rulings have sided with Michael Schiavo. The courts have ruled that evidence shows Terri Schiavo expressed her wishes, although she did not have a written living will.

Judge Greer on Thursday denied the state petition to put Schiavo into state custody but is now considering a petition by the DCF. It says a neurologist who examined Schiavo's medical records found she was "most likely in a state of minimal consciousness" rather than the persistent vegetative state previous doctors have diagnosed.

According to the petition, the agency's board-certified neurologist, Dr. William Polk Cheshire, has information "that seriously challenges the diagnosis that Mrs. Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state," as courts have upheld.

"This new information raises serious concerns and warrants immediate action," Gov. Bush said. (Full story)

Greer in 2002 rejected arguments put forth by doctors chosen by Schiavo's parents that she was not in a persistent vegetative state. Three other doctors -- two chosen by Michael Schiavo and one chosen by the court -- concluded she was in that state.

There was no immediate response from Michael Schiavo about the petition, but he has said he loves his wife and has provided her with the best care possible.

Wednesday night, Bob Schindler accused Greer of being "on a crusade" to kill Terri.

The parents visited their daughter Wednesday, flanked by police. Groups of activists who support them were outside the hospice.

A day of setbacks for parents
Terri Schiavo's parents suffered several setbacks Wednesday:


A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta refused by a 2-1 vote to order the tube reinserted.


The full 11th Circuit later in the day voted 10-2 not to reconsider the panel's rejection.


In Washington, the Bush administration said there was nothing more it could do.


A bill in the Florida Senate aimed at prolonging Terri's life failed 21-18.

The U.S. Justice Department has filed "statements of interest" supporting the parents in each court action.

Last weekend, President Bush signed a bill passed by Congress moving the Schiavo case from state to federal courts, and Monday, U.S. District Court Judge James Whittemore in Tampa refused to grant a temporary restraining order that would have allowed reinsertion of the woman's feeding tube.

Terri Schiavo suffered profound brain damage in 1990, when her heart stopped temporarily, perhaps because of an eating disorder. Since then, she has received around-the-clock care.

In 1998, her husband petitioned to have her feeding tube removed. After court rulings, the tube was removed for two days in 2001 and six days in 2003.

Gov. Bush strongly urged the Legislature to pass a bill that would save Schiavo, as it did in 2003. That law allowed Bush to order doctors to restore Schiavo's feeding tube six days after it had been removed. But that law was later declared unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court.

Since last Friday, Michael Schiavo has been at Terri Schiavo's bedside, Felos has said.

Mary Schindler said Wednesday: "When I close my eyes at night, all I can see is Terri's face in front of me, dying, starving to death."

ChumpDumper
03-24-2005, 12:31 PM
For all their arrogance, the Supremes sure are a bunch of pussies when it comes to making a tough call.

Clandestino
03-24-2005, 12:33 PM
i believe she should be allowed to die naturally...

MannyIsGod
03-24-2005, 12:34 PM
It's not a tough call though.

ChumpDumper
03-24-2005, 12:36 PM
Politically tough, given the conflicts between the merits and the likely personal opinions of the justices.

MannyIsGod
03-24-2005, 12:56 PM
But legally it was pretty much acknowledged there were no grounds for a review.

ChumpDumper
03-24-2005, 12:58 PM
The "without comment" part is the cowardly thing.

IcemanCometh
03-24-2005, 12:59 PM
http://unix.rulez.org/~calver/pictures/6thsensestupidpeople.jpg

ChumpDumper
03-24-2005, 01:04 PM
:wtf

MannyIsGod
03-24-2005, 01:37 PM
gotcha chump

FromWayDowntown
03-24-2005, 02:26 PM
The "without comment" part is the cowardly thing.

It would be if the Court ever commented on its reasons for not taking cases. The Court doesn't do that. I had them deny one of mine in February and they certainly didn't offer any comment then.

Besides, they've already ruled on the legal issue at stake here. In Cruzan, they said that an individual has a right to die if the choice to be taken off of life-sustaining measures is proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Constitutionally, the Supreme Court has no fact-finding ability. It's stuck with applying the law to the facts as those facts have been found by the lower courts. Here, the courts in Florida (both the trial court and every appellate court) have concluded that there is clear and convincing evidence that Terri Schiavo didn't want her life extended by artificial measures. The Court has to respect those findings and is left only to decide if the proper standard of proof was applied. There are no genuine constitutional challenges here, because the issue has already been resolved. Since the Constitution permits decisions to withdraw life-support, there is no real Equal Protection challenge here, meaning that the Schindlers had no real likelihood of success on the merits. Without a likelihood of success, there is no legal justification for granting the injunction sought in the federal proceedings.

What more should the Court say? Would it be better if they denied review with a comment like "We meant what we said in Cruzan."? Would it be better if they denied review with a comment like "We're really sorry that the evidence supports the decision below, but we must adhere to it."?

Would you have the Court ignore the law and act out of passion? It seems to me that ignoring the law here would be a case of judicial activism -- the very thing that the right laments every day. Funny, because now the right is claiming that judges are activists by their steadfast adherence to the law.

MannyIsGod
03-24-2005, 02:34 PM
The defenition of an activist judge is one that rules in disagreement with conservative talking points.

IcemanCometh
03-24-2005, 02:52 PM
http://macdillthunderbolt.com/segregation.jpg

activist judges

ChumpDumper
03-24-2005, 02:53 PM
It would be if the Court ever commented on its reasons for not taking cases. The Court doesn't do that.Exactly. It would be nice if they actually said why they didn't, or at least had their clerks write it up. I think alot of people have a misconception of the Supreme Court and the entire appelate process. Everyone thinks the same facts are being tried over and over again when the appeals actually only deal with very fine points of law. I think it would actually be a public service to explain why this case was not heard while the seemingly (to the average citizen) innocuous Johnnie Cochran defamation gag order case is.

travis2
03-24-2005, 02:58 PM
The defenition of an activist judge is one that rules in disagreement with conservative talking points.

Let's not be insulting, OK?

I for one have actually given you examples of what I consider judicial activism.

I also haven't said that this case is necessarily such a case.

IcemanCometh
03-24-2005, 02:58 PM
it'd be nice if americans had a simple grasp of the workings of government.
it'd be nice if the supreme court could say why they heard this case and not this case and people actually paid attention.
it'd be nice if bush explained his policy's

IcemanCometh
03-24-2005, 03:01 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/vote_early_often/tkjtktkt7k7k.jpg

FromWayDowntown
03-24-2005, 03:36 PM
Exactly. It would be nice if they actually said why they didn't, or at least had their clerks write it up.

It might be nice, but it's not feasible. The Court gets something like 10,000 petitions every year. It takes something like 100 cases. Those clerks would be writing so many memoranda concerning denials that the Court would have a very difficult time getting any work done on the cases that are actually reviewed. And even if they did offer some explanations, it's unlikely that they would (or could) say much of substance, particularly because the judges shouldn't have to go on record in cases that they don't consider thoroughly and because explanations would have to be very short to account for time constraints.


I think alot of people have a misconception of the Supreme Court and the entire appelate process. Everyone thinks the same facts are being tried over and over again when the appeals actually only deal with very fine points of law.

I absolutely agree with you. But it's not like an understanding of the appellate process would be made clearer by a series of terse explanations of the reasons for denying particular cases. The Courts are not secret places -- if people want to see the appellate process at work, they can attend oral arguments, or go to courts and check out briefs to read what the attorneys are arguing. With many courts, both of those things are available on line. If people cared, they could find out. I truly think that most people simply don't care. I'd be willing to bet that most people couldn't name more than 2 judges on the Supreme Court right now.


I think it would actually be a public service to explain why this case was not heard while the seemingly (to the average citizen) innocuous Johnnie Cochran defamation gag order case is.

The explanation is simple: this case does not involve an unresolved Constitutional question; the Cochran case, however, does.

That's why the Cochran case will be reviewed while the Schiavo case will not.

Extra Stout
03-24-2005, 03:45 PM
The defenition of an activist judge is one that rules in disagreement with conservative talking points.Well, Religious Right talking points anyway. Conservatism -- as defined by the movement of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan is more or less dead.

I also love the Religious Right's position on separation of powers and federalism: "I believe in separation of powers and federalism, but (insert issues 1-10,000 here) are just too important, so the federal government has to get involved."

Same thing for the rule of law:
--When the law supports their position: "We are a nation of laws! We must adhere to the rule of law!"
--When the law goes against their position: "But the Constitution and the Founding Fathers are wrong in this case! This is a matter of right and wrong! We don't have time to change the laws! Shame on you if you disagree! You are evil and going to hell!"

I wish these simian dolts would go crawl back under the Appalachian rocks from which they came and leave us humanoids alone. Fuck the fundies.

IcemanCometh
03-24-2005, 03:50 PM
Heres what the Ultimate Warrior has to say (http://www.ultimatewarrior.com/03.22.05.htm)

Nbadan
03-24-2005, 04:54 PM
High Court Orders Tom DeLay's Feeding Tube Removed


In a surprise 8-1 decision today, the United States Supreme Court ordered that the feeding tube which has been keeping Tom DeLay (R-TX) alive be removed.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia stated that "there is absolutely no hope that the Congressman will ever regain cognitive function. It's embarrassing to have the guy flopping around the House of Representatives in his vegetative state. This Court is doing him and the whole Republican Party a favor by yanking the tube."

Congressmen DeLay entered a coma approximately seven months ago and has been kept alive by a tube which delivers water and nutrients to his braindead body. DeLay has caused something of a spectacle in the US Capitol building, attracting howling mobs of frenzied fundamentalists who bang their heads against the floor and flagellate themselves in their appeal to God to bring the Congressman back to life.

US Marshals have been working overtime to control the spectators who come to pray with the Congressman, and now only registered Fundamentalists with certified fatwas from Pat Robertson are allowed near the body. Mel Gibson was recently arrested when he tried to break through the cordons to "pray with DeLay."

The Republican-dominated House Ethics Committee passed a special bill last month which would allow the popular Texas Congressman to keep his seat in the House of Representatives even after he is officially declared dead. Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has complained bitterly that the Republicans "already have enough braindead members in their delegation; now they apparently want stinking corpses to keep their seats too."

Deadbrain.com (http://www.deadbrain.com/politics/article_2005_03_22_4157.php)

exstatic
03-24-2005, 06:09 PM
^^^:lmao

Spurminator
03-24-2005, 07:20 PM
This whole thing disgusts me.

Everybody knows the same thing about Terry Schiavo, her husband's motives, and her family's motives: Dick.

And yet - amazingly - the position of every talking head, partisan and politician can be predicted more easily than a Harlem Globetrotters game. If we weren't talking about a woman's life and a devastated family, it would almost be funny watching from the sidelines as each side calls the other hypocritical.

Yet another episode of "American Grandstand." I'm going to go vomit now.