Terri Schiavo's tube will be reinserted soon

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
This would normally be the case, however the spouse waited SEVEN YEARS before he miraculously recalled this supposed verbal living will. Under these circumstances, a reasonable person would subject what he says to just a wee itty bitty bit more scrutiny

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you think the trial court didn't subject what he says to scrutiny? Just because they ruled in a way that you disagree with? That's what the trial is for. We generally don't allow people in our system to make countless appeals just because they don't like a FACTUAL ruling that the trial court made. We don't relitigate facts. Whether a conversation took place is a fact.

Our system requires finality of decisions and one way (a good way) is, absent some compelling evidence to the contrary, we do not relitigate questions of fact. If this weren't with the case, people would want to relitigate car accident cases because the judge found that they ran through the stoplight --- why? well, because there was evidence to the contrary. The fact that there is evidence to the contrary is why we have trials----to sort out the facts. Once the facts are sorted out, then the questions raised (i.e. appeals) are questions of law (not questions of fact.)

[elwoodblues]

Using the courts to provide a judicial remedy has ALWAYS been held to not be enough government action. On this, the case law is very clear and it makes a lot of sense. If this weren't the case, all you would have to do to make something a federal question would be to file a lawsuit --- it takes more, it takes an independent act of the government.

If a court action was all that was required, then the following could be brought to federal court on the basis of you being denied Free Speech rights by the government:
You try to go to a private party with a protest sign. The owners of the property don't allow you on the premises. You sue, the courts agree with that the private property owners have every right to deny you the right to protest on their property. You now cannot claim that the government acted in contradiction of your free speech rights, because the only government action was the court case -- i.e. there wasn't an underlying government action.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
This would normally be the case, however the spouse waited SEVEN YEARS before he miraculously recalled this supposed verbal living will. Under these circumstances, a reasonable person would subject what he says to just a wee itty bitty bit more scrutiny

[/ QUOTE ]

Our system requires finality of decisions and one way (a good way) is, absent some compelling evidence to the contrary, we do not relitigate questions of fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
If a court action was all that was required, then the following could be brought to federal court on the basis of you being denied Free Speech rights by the government:
You try to go to a private party with a protest sign. The owners of the property don't allow you on the premises. You sue, the courts agree with that the private property owners have every right to deny you the right to protest on their property. You now cannot claim that the government acted in contradiction of your free speech rights, because the only government action was the court case -- i.e. there wasn't an underlying government action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your story isn't parallel, because I never had the freedom to carry my sign into their party in the first place. Terri, however, had the right to both due process and freedom of religion before this trial.

Try this. I carry my protest sign to a public park. A group of private individuals prevents me from entering said park. I sue. The court (wrongly) agrees with the individuals who kept me out. The court then orders that those individuals continue to keep me out. I can now claim that the government, by authorizing their actions, has acted in contradiction of my 1st amendment rights even though the only government action was the court case.

[Voltron87]

Now that the feeding tube has been taken out, it cannot be put back in. Doing so would be performing a medical procedure against the patient's (or their legal surrogate) will.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

[elwoodblues]

That fact was known at the time was it not...therefore it is not compelling evidence at this time because it was presumably factored into the trial court's decision.

[elwoodblues]

You are misdefining the rights. You do not have a right to practice your religion free from all intervention. You have a right to practice your religion free from government intervention.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Now that the feeding tube has been taken out, it cannot be put back in. Doing so would be performing a medical procedure against the patient's (or their legal surrogate) will.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Feeding is not a medical proceedure.

[Voltron87]

Well she would technically starve, but since most of her brain is gone she would not feel the pain which you would think she would.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
You are misdefining the rights. You do not have a right to practice your religion free from all intervention. You have a right to practice your religion free from government intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my example, the government is de facto intervening.