To Me the Real Tragedy Schiavo Case

[adios]

I was thinking about where the “middle ground” might be in the Schiavo case. The parties went to the courts to have the courts resolve their dispute. Therefore they asked the court to make a decision. A decision the Schindler’s didn’t like but they sought it. The parties didn’t have to do that as they could have reached a settlement of some sort out of court. I don’t have any doubts that such a settlement would have involved compromises that both sides would have been reluctant to agree to. Reports I’ve heard on the media indicate that they did attempt to mediate their dispute at some point. Too bad that failed. I can see how they could have possibly reached a settlement though and to me the real tragedy is wasting so much time and money on legal issues when there could have been a compromise if both sides were willing to accept some things they really didn’t like. Perhaps Michael would have agreed to more tests and attempts at rehabilitation in exchange for having the Schindler’s agree that if those tests and efforts didn’t pan out that Terri was in fact in a permanently vegetative state and that the feeding tube would be disconnected. Again I realize that if one or both sides are intransigent then a court decision is the way to resolve the dispute. Of course when that happens a court will probably make some decisions that neither party will like anyway.

[TransientR]

I don't think a compromise was possible. For one thing, the Schindlers seem to be in near total denial about the degree of their daughter's brain damage, and Michael has certainly shown he is unbending in his position.

By the way I don't believe for a second Terri's father's claim that she whispered to him "I want to live." I think it is indicative that in their extreme emotional distress, the Schindlers are literally hearing things, and if not, are willing to say anything to fire up their supporters and bolster their case.

Frank

[Voltron87]

The real tragedy is all the politicans using this woman as a political pawn.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]

By the way I don't believe for a second Terri's father's claim that she whispered to him "I want to live." I think it is indicative that in their extreme emotional distress, the Schindlers are literally hearing things, and if not, are willing to say anything to fire up their supporters and bolster their case.

[/ QUOTE ]After 15 years of having the American Taliban like Terry Randall whisper in their ears, I'm sure they've gradually learned to justify just about anything. I can't imagine them being so delusional to really believe she's talking, but I've never been in their situation. Also, it's not unlikely that mental illness runs in their family considering how Terri got her stroke in the first place.

Situations like this happen all the time- only crazy parents would believe their daughter would have really wanted her hollow body made such a spectacle of. Considering the company they keep, it would not surprise me if they had political motivations as well. I think what we just witnessed was the start of a campaign to get an anti-abortion Supreme Court Justice confirmed. Instead we were just reminded how pathetic of a President Bush was before he could blame everything on 9/11.

[jakethebake]

The real tragedy is the number of hours of regularly scheduled programming that has been interrupted for updates.

[adios]

Yes when both sides are intransigent there's no compromise. From some media reports I've heard at one point they did have a deal though but it didn't hold together. Supposedly Michael had agreed to turn over guardianship to the Schindler's and the trust fund money when it had a lot more in it. Don't know how true that is.

[adios]

Lot of reruns are being aired and will be aired in the future.

[elwoodblues]

In most cases I agree that compromise is almost always the best situation. Here, however, there is little room for compromise as one side believes she would want to live and one side believes she would want to die. Compromise usually works best when both sides are happy/satisfied with the result. Here, no matter what the result was, one side would not feel satisfied.

---------------------

The longwinded and unorganized ramblings of a madman...

For me, it all comes down to is, absent a living will, who do we want to express the wishes of a patient in this situation.

The whole language of the discussion is so skewed it is sickening. Any time a reporter refers to the parents as "acting on behalf of Terri" (or similar language), they are making a value judgment that Terri's parents are more aware of her wishes than her spouse. Very rarely do you hear the news say something like Michael Schiavo "acting on behalf of Terri..."

When someone doesn't create a living will we have to make some assumptions and the most logical assumption to make is that the husband knows what their spouse would want. In this particular case, everyone is being a monday morning quarterback. People are so easily swayed by rumor and innuendo. They assume malintent with no evidence. The legal system I want ASSUMES that my spouse speaks for me and on my behalf. It places the burden on those suggesting otherwise to prove their case.

Despite the amount of bitching to the counter, this case deserves the press it is getting. It deserves the press to raise awareness, to encourage people to make their wishes known in writing. For those who haven't done it, get a living will ---- you usually don't need an attorney and you don't only fill one out if you want to die. This terrible situation could have been played out the same way if the parents believed she wanted to die and Michael believed she wanted to live.

To me, this isn't/shouldn't be a case about government power. It should be about the right of the individual to determine their own medical treatment. If we believe that Terri could have chosen on her own accord(without horrible moral outrage) to have a feeding tube removed, then we shouldn't be outraged when a guardian (who by definition is acting on behalf of the ward) acts in the same manner.

I still am trying to understand whether the "let her live" position is: Let her live because she would have wanted it that way; or if it is Let her live despite what she would have wanted. I think there are two distinct arguments that aren't being distinctly made. When people argue about the facts of the case, they are really arguing the "she would have wanted it that way" position. So for them, we can argue the facts back and forth without getting to the principled argument: Should we REQUIRE her to live DESPITE her wishes.

Finally, just to throw a little easter twist...

Jesus was God.
As God, Jesus could have saved himself from death.
Jesus chose death.

Why do Christians assume that God/Jesus would want Terri to continue life when Jesus himself chose death?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Compromise usually works best when both sides are happy/satisfied with the result.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes ideally.

[ QUOTE ]
Here, no matter what the result was, one side would not feel satisfied.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I submit that this is most often the situation and people reach settlements nonetheless. FWIW going to court will almost all the time result in a situation where both parties have to accept court decisions they don't like.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The legal system I want ASSUMES that my spouse speaks for me and on my behalf.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about an estranged spouse? What about a spouse with conflict of interest? What about any number of other conditions a spouse may be influenced by? What about a spouse who was about to file for divorce on you? The possible list is endless and IMO it is farcical to presume that any and every spouse should speak for the other helpless partner regardless of unusual conditions. In life or death matters such considerations should be taken into account without it having to be PROVED that the spouse does not have your best interests at heart.

The law that automatically considers that an estranged spouse with conflicting interests to be a better arbiter of the helpless partner's best wishes, than that person's own parents, is a poor law IMO. It is a poor law since it is a "one-size-fits-all" law. And one size fits all is a very dangerous pattern to follow especially in individual matters of life and death.

The argument that Michael Schiavo knew her better than her parents did, would STILL hold true even if he had divorced her. If he had divorced her it would be obvious that his primary concerns lay elsewhere and he would not have been considered her primary guardian. THEREFORE the argument that he knew her better is insufficient to warrant the status it is legally accorded. Also, part of the determining criteria ought to hinge on the depth/sincerity of his commitment to her. A divorced spouse clearly has little or no commitmemt; why should an estranged spouse be presumed to have full commitment? Again it is one-size-fits-all and therefore IMO a poor law.

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
The real tragedy is all the politicans using this woman as a political pawn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Folks, we have a winner...

[masse75]

Dude, all your arguments are peppered with way too many "What if's" and "Maybe's."

Do you really think after 15 years, the courts (including the Supreme Court) are being hoodwinked?

[elwoodblues]

We have to come up with a statutory scheme. It is farcical to assume that you can incorporate all of your hypotheticals into a statutory scheme. Much like what we do when someone dies without a will, we don't differentiate between estranged spouses, spouses with a conflict of interest, etc. We make a general rule and allow people to differentiate from the general rule by drafting a document.

[ QUOTE ]
It is a poor law since it is a "one-size-fits-all" law

[/ QUOTE ]

Would your rather have countless "Terri's laws"? It is one size fits all with an opt-out --- if you think your spouse won't act in your best interest, write a living will.

[ QUOTE ]
If he had divorced her it would be obvious that his primary concerns lay elsewhere and he would not have been considered her primary guardian.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really want the government "grading" a marital relationship to determine if the husband was good enough. Why do you require that of the husband, but not of the parents? Have you even considered the possibility that Terri's religious and personal views were different than her parents and her parents either weren't aware or didn't care? You seem very willing to take that position with Michael, why not the same with the parents?

[ QUOTE ]
The law that automatically considers that an estranged spouse with conflicting interests

[/ QUOTE ]

Again (for about the 30th time) literally EVERY spouse has a financial conflict of interest. As a rule, we say that despite financial interests that befall a dead spouse, we will believe that that husband is acting in the interests of their spouse/ward.

I am shocked that so many small government types are so willing to want the government to grade a marriage to determine if there was enough love (or whatever) for a husband to by default act on behalf of a wife.

Serious question: Do you have the same problems with intestate distribution laws? Should only "good" husbands inherit when their spouse dies even if the parents "know" that she would have wanted them to get the money?

[MMMMMM]

I'm not trying to suggest the government "grade" every relationship. But just as a divorced spouse would not be considered as automatic guardian, an estranged spouse should not automatically be presumed to be as appropriate a guardian as a non-estranged spouse.

What if a spouse had had to seek a restraining order against the other for domestic abuse? Would the law you cite ignore that and still choose him first as guardian???

Unusual situations should be taken into account. I think that's part of what a jury should be for.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, all your arguments are peppered with way too many "What if's" and "Maybe's."

"Maybe's" are very important in matters of life and death.

Do you really think after 15 years, the courts (including the Supreme Court) are being hoodwinked?


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't see why it couldn't be so. Even if not actually "hoodwinked", courts often make mistakes. And I will say again that if this were a criminal trial it would look like Terri was getting railroaded.

[Voltron87]

So me and ahervai are the only ones bothered by the political opportunism being shown by (mainly Republican) politicians here? Typical.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
But just as a divorced spouse would not be considered as automatic guardian...

[/ QUOTE ]

Because by definition they aren't a spouse. I guess I don't see that you are suggesting a better alternative to what exists. You seem to be hung up on the decisions of this particular case because the court found the facts to be different than you believe them to be.

[ QUOTE ]
Unusual situations should be taken into account. I think that's part of what a jury should be for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? The trial court heard the arguments/cases presented by two opposing parties and determined the facts. Both parties were well represented by disinterested parties. Now that you don't like the way the court decided, you want to just keep re-arguing the facts of the case until the court goes your way. That isn't (nor should it be) how the system works.

[ QUOTE ]
What if a spouse had had to seek a restraining order against the other for domestic abuse? Would the law you cite ignore that and still choose him first as guardian???

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't know, nor do I particularly care. Part of what the guardian has to show is that they are acting in a way that the ward would have wanted. Whether the guardian was abusive is interesting for political spectacle, but is irrelevant to answering that question. Remember that a disinterested guardian ad litem appointed by an INTERESTED governor found that Terri's wishes were what Michael claims them to be. Even if the parents were guardians, if you believe the disinterested guardian ad litem, the spouse, and two other relatives they would have to follow Terri's wishes above their personal wishes to keep her alive.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
And I will say again that if this were a criminal trial it would look like Terri was getting railroaded.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if Terri had written her wishes instead of just speaking them, her parents would look like monsters and nobody would say that they were on "Terri's side." Alas, this wasn't a criminal case nor were her wishes documented in writing.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
What if a spouse had had to seek a restraining order against the other for domestic abuse? Would the law you cite ignore that and still choose him first as guardian???

Unusual situations should be taken into account. I think that's part of what a jury should be for.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. This is hilarious. You are accused of using entirely too many hypotheticals as red herrings and your very next post has a hypothetical in it.

2. Terri Schiavo is a "special" case only inasmuch as she's a well bred white girl from suburbia that right-to-lifers feel they can successfully use for their anti-euthenasia, anti-abortion, anti-reality-of-death campaign.

HER CASE IS NOT SPECIAL!!!

Want another example of how "special" all of these "special" cases are? Name the black woman that was taken hostage along side Jessica Lynch (oops, you can't use Google). Name a girl that was kidnapped in the last year. Now name a non-white girl that was kidnapped in the last year.

Terri Schiavo is nothing more to the Right than an opportunity that presented itself.

[cardcounter0]

How about name the black baby that was taken off of life support in Texas while this has all been going on? (against the parents wishes, but they didn't have money).

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a poor law since it is a "one-size-fits-all" law. And one size fits all is a very dangerous pattern to follow especially in individual matters of life and death.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what kind of legal eagle has advised you thus, but your argument ignores the basic fact that the legislative branch will always set forth laws that "fit all" -- and then it is up to the courts to fit the law into the individual cases.

...The courts - remember?

What else you got aside from the courts? You have yet to respond squarely on that question, irrespective of the Schiavo particulars.

[elwoodblues]

Just some additional information I just found. I didn't know that this was in the trial court record, but it doesn't surprise me at all.

Quoting from the guardian ad litem's report to Governor Bush:
[ QUOTE ]
Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive. Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the distrubing belief that thhey would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery. There was additional, difficult testimony that appeared to establish that despite the sad and undesirable condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy from having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware of her environment given the persistent vegetative state. Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That says a lot to me and is at the heart of issue. The full transcript of the guardian ad litem's report is available here (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf) for those who are interested.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
How about name the black baby that was taken off of life support in Texas while this has all been going on? (against the parents wishes, but they didn't have money).

[/ QUOTE ]

That case was funny. The infant was born terminally ill (his chest and lungs were too small and couldn't grow because of a genetic defect); the hospital called 40 other hospitals to ask if they would take him, then asked the mother to file the suit against itself. Incidentally, the mother said the baby talked to her while in her womb and was still talking to her the entire time telling her he'd be OK if he just had some more time to grow (she wasn't all that stable, either.) However, the law behind it all, which let the hospital take the infant off life support, was signed by GWB as governor with his support. Yay!

Also, the Schindlers are *also* on record as saying that, if Terri developed gangrene and a defective heart, they'd chop off all her arms and legs and perform open heart surgery rather than let her die.

The original issue is that the Schindlers are Roman Catholic and apparently turned more fundie after the accident, while Terri married a Protestant and didn't care. The Schindlers think that Terri may go to hell if she kills herself (never mind that whatever this is it's probably not suicide) and THAT'S why they've been fighting it this strongly. Their attorneys have reversed themselves over whether Terri was in a PVS or not at least three times, basically because Florida has an ambiguous law that appears to grant some protection in PVS cases and they wanted to use it. When that appeal failed, they immediately claimed she *was* in a PVS once more.

This case goes back very far and has some very twisted roots. Of course, the media is reporting 0% of it.

[MMMMMM]

Elwood, I think part of the problem as I see it is that the courts determined "facts" but those "facts" were in fact uncertain and under dispute. For instance the expert doctors the court used came down 3-2 that Terri was in PVS. Yet the court, instead of using that information to help assign a rough probablity rating of say 60%-80% (or perhaps even higher), instead simply made a determination that she was indeed in PVS. Likewise regarding Michael Schiavo, the courts may have suspected him of conflict of interest and perhaps even wrongdoing, but instead of assigning a rough value by which to reduce his credibility due to those factors, instead gave him a status of full 100% credibility for all purposes intended.

Therefore the final conclusions of the court may be way off since uncertainties were essentially given a value of 100% instead of, say, 75% chance that she was in PVS and 75% chance that Michael Schiavo was acting in her best interests. Since Terri's life was hanging in the balance such doubts as these these are very important considerations. In other words it is my view that the court was wrong to consider her as 100% certain of being in PVS. What if it was only 90% certain? Jeez it's her LIFE we're talking about here--even a 90% certainty of that combined with an 80% confidence in Michael Schiavo means there is substantial doubt in both ways. And by default I think she should not be deprived of life if there is reasonable doubt and even those numberscertainly qualify as reasonable doubt in my estimation. But all that is moot because apparently the courts threw out any rough percentage estimates, even high ones, and just decided that those values should each be considered as 100%. Which of course is simplistic and ridiculous. Try playing poker that way. But this is playing poker with someone's life so it is even more important to not assign null values to thin draws.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Elwood, I think part of the problem as I see it is that the courts determined "facts" but those "facts" were in fact uncertain and under dispute

[/ QUOTE ]

If courts only decided undisputed facts, that wouldn't be much of a system.

[adios]

From the last guardian ad litem's report to the governor (I counted 3 guardian ad litem's in this case):

Within the construct of the GAL’s role, an additional recommendation is proffered to the court and to the Governor. During the more than nine years of adversarial relationships involving Theresa, no permanent Guardian Ad Litem has been appointed to stand exclusively in her shoes. It is the additional recommendation of the GAL that as long as controversy and an adversarial legal relationship exist in Theresa’s case, a Guardian Ad Litem should be appointed to represent her exclusive interests. This is in no way intended to detract from or impugn the role of Theresa’s existing Guardian, Michael Schiavo.

This recommendation makes a lot of sense to me. In fact if you read this report the guardian ad litem was in the process of negotiating a settlement more or less. Yet when the law that allowed Bush to appoint a guardian ad litem for Terri was declared unconstitutional, the judge dismissed the guardian ad litem. I believe that Michael Schiavo made a motion to dismiss and the judge complied. The judge didn't have to do that.

Also regarding the second guardian ad litem, in the 3rd guardian ad litem's report.

In 1997, six years after Theresa’s tragic collapse, Michael elected to initiate an action to withdraw artificial life support from Theresa. More than a year later, in May of 1998, the first petition to discontinue life support was entered. The court appointed Richard Pearse, Esq., to serve as Guardian Ad Litem to review the request for withdrawal, a standard procedure. Mr. Pearse’s report, submitted to the court on 20 December 1998 contains what appear to be objective and challenging findings. His review of the clinical record confirmed that Theresa’s condition was that of a diagnosed persistent vegetative state with no chance of improvement. Mr. Pearse’s investigation concluded that the statements of Mrs. Schindler, Theresa’s mother, indicated that Theresa displayed special responses, mostly to her, but that these were not observed or documented. In Re: Theresa Marie Schiavo, Incapacitated

Mr. Pearse documents the evolving disaffections between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo. He concludes that Michael Schiavo’s testimony regarding the basis for his decision to withdraw life support – a conversation he had with his wife, Theresa, was not clear and convincing, and that potential conflicts of interest regarding the disposition of residual funds in Theresa’s trust account following her death affected Michael and the Schindlers – but he placed greater emphasis on the impact it might have had on Michael’s decision to discontinue artificial life support. At the time of Mr. Pearse’s report, more than $700,000 remained in the guardianship estate. Mr. Pearse concludes that Michael’s hearsay testimony about Theresa’s intent is “necessarily adversely affected by the obvious financial benefit to him of being the sole heir at law…” and “…by the chronology of this case…”, specifically referencing Michael’s change in position relative to maintaining Theresa following the malpractice award. Mr. Pearse recommended that the petition for removal of the feeding tube be denied, or in the alternative, if the court found the evidence to be clear and convincing, the feeding tube should be withdrawn. Mr. Pearse also recommended that a Guardian Ad Litem continue to serve in all subsequent proceedings. In response to Mr. Pearse’s report, Michael Schiavo filed a Suggestion of Bias against Mr. Pearse. This document notes that Mr. Pearse failed to mention in his report that Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate. The criticism continues to note that Mr. Pearse’s concern about abuse of inheritance potential was directly solely at Michael, not at the Schindlers in the event they might become the heirs and also choose to terminate artificial life support. Further, significant chronological deficits and factual errors are noted, detracting from and prejudicing the objective credibility of Mr. Pearse’s report. In Re: Theresa Marie Schiavo, Incapacitated

The Suggestion of Bias challenges premises and findings of Mr. Pearse, establishing a well pleaded case for bias. In February of 1999, Mr. Pearse tendered his petition for additional authority or discharge. He was discharged in June of 1999 and no new Guardian Ad Litem was named.

I have no idea what additional authority he wanted. In my mind the 3rd guardian ad litems recommendation that I first cited would have made a lot of sense in 1999 let alone 2003.

Yeah I don't like the way this case went down either but a lot of times those are the breaks when you go to court.

From Daniel Henninger's column in the WSJ today:

For the record, let us examine the basis for Judge Greer's original decision to withhold artificial life support.

Judge Greer decided to pursue what Terri's wishes were and said he was guided by a Florida Supreme Court case called Guardianship of Estelle M. Browning. It set three tests, one of which is that "the evidence of the patient's oral declaration is reliable."

"This is the issue before the court, "Judge Greer wrote. "All of the other collateral issues [such as the beliefs of family concerning end-of-life decisions] truly are not relevant to the issue which the court must decide."

Judge Greer then cited testimony taken from Michael Schiavo's brother and sister-in-law, who said Terri had said, "I don't want to be kept alive on a machine" and several similar statements. Judge Greer said this "rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence to this court."

To you and I it doesn't seem to rise to the standard of clear and convincing. To Judge Greer it did and he's the guy that counts in this case.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if not actually "hoodwinked", courts often make mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

God I have read similar statements so many times in these threads. THIS IS FALSE. Do you know how many decisions courts (state and federal) issue a year? Do you realize how relatively FEW you hear about where someone merely CONTENDS that the decision is wrong? Do you honestly think that there is a significant number of decisions that make it through multiple levels of appeals and remain "wrong"?

Maybe you frequently review the court dockets around the country. And maybe you disagree with a substantial number of the decisions you read. But almost every decision you will find is supported by both fact and law. There may be a reasonable interpretation of the facts and law different from what the court finds, but that doesn't mean that the decision is "wrong". That's what judges do -- they interpret the law and apply it to the facts. And for those that are not based in fact and law, they are largely reversed by appellate courts. Does it happen that flat-out wrong decisions -- those not supported by fact and law -- make it all the way through the court system? Perhaps. But it's rare.

And this goes for left-wing judges, right-wing judges, middle-wing judges, chicken-wing judges, and no wing judges.

[MMMMMM]

Interesting info. you posted.

[ QUOTE ]

Judge Greer then cited testimony taken from Michael Schiavo's brother and sister-in-law, who said Terri had said, "I don't want to be kept alive on a machine" and several similar statements. Judge Greer said this "rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence to this court."

To you and I it doesn't seem to rise to the standard of clear and convincing. To Judge Greer it did and he's the guy that counts in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Clear and convincing" is 3 blood-related witnesses the primary witness who may have some major conflict of interest issues in the case?

Hard to see how he genuinely can believe that rises to the level of clear and convincing. If it were a criminal case would he think the same? I suspect Greer let his own pro-euthanasia bias influence his decision as well as his own personal view of what would be best for Terri.

[slickpoppa]

It's clear that Judge Greer has a grudge against Terri Schiavo and wanted her to die. I mean, who doesn't like deciding that someone should die?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Elwood, I think part of the problem as I see it is that the courts determined "facts" but those "facts" were in fact uncertain and under dispute

-----------------------------------------------------------

If courts only decided undisputed facts, that wouldn't be much of a system.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that's an asinine way to proceed, to assign only 1's or 0's to values that should instead have percentages of certainty assigned. Clearly many values should be deemed, even speaking roughly, as (starting at the low end of the scale): impossible, highly unlikely, somewhat unlikely, roughly neutral, somewhat likely, highly likely, certain.

To insist on assigning extreme truth values for future reference on matters that are fairly uncertain is not only asinine, it is IDIOTIC, and unfair to the parties concerned (speaking generally here). Maybe it helps streamline things somewhat but I thought the purpose of the courts was to find truth and justice?

If that is common legal procedure then no wonder courts make so many bad decisions.

[MMMMMM]

I disagree, Niss, but I am considering shoddy jury verdicts/findings/awards as mistakes too.

[TransientR]

Why would you say that?

To me the craven display by Delay and Frist et al. wasn't worth commenting on. If anyone doesn't think Delay is an utterly corrupt politician, I have a bridge to sell them. As for Dr. Frist, this is a man who recently on national TV would not deny that AIDs could be transmitted by tears and saliva, adopted cats from no-kill shelters and proceeded to kill them (admitting later that he was "not in his right mind"), and diagnosed Terri from biased videotape 'evidence,' despite the fact he has no credentials in neurology what so ever.

Frank