3/27    I have a proposal for you Christians and Pro-Lifers. Instead of
        bitching and whining, how about setting up a "Save Terri Fund", where
        you donate a large portion of your church money to the Terri fund so
        that you can 1) bribe Michael and 2) pay for medical expenses? I mean,
        this whole thing is about MONEY right? Stop building really nice super
        mega churches, spend some of that money on Terri.
        \_ Um, people *have* tried to give Michael money.  By his count it's
           over $15M.
        \_ I'm neither a Christian nor a pro-lifer, but this is a completely
           nonsensical statement. This whole thing is NOT about money. If
           you honestly believed that then you're a moron. This whole thing
           is about a whacky belief system that insists a brain-dead shell
           of a human should be allowed to be artificially maintained
           ad nauseum. I'm not quite sure why this is "christian" since
           if you believe in god, you'd figure that this is basically god's
           way of telling you that your time is up. Keeping people on earth
           indefinitely through life support sure as hell doesn't sound
           very christian, ethical, or humane. In fact, it's rather ironic
           that it isn't the atheists who insist on letting Terri continue
           on, since if there's no god, there's no after life, and keeping
           Terri alive indefinitely theoretically improves her chances of
           getting some sort of future miracle treatment that would cure
           her. Chances of that are obviously virtually nil, but it's an
           illustration on how whacky reasoning can get you to any conclusion
           you want.
           \_ anti-Christian troll alert. I hope to see a good rebutal from
              our good mannered Christian/Mormon friend(s) on motd.
           \_ Any result is in God's plan, right?
        \_ many if not most of Terri's advocates only want her to receive
           due process, which she obviously has not.  There are too many
           conflicts of interest between the only judge who actually
           reviewed the case, the lawyer Felos, and Michael.  I don't
           understand how after all of the publicity given to this case
           you can't see the glaring inconsistencies in the order of
           her execution.  When the only witness to her wish to die
           contradicts himself repeatedly, one might expect a more
           thorough investigation.
           \_ I can't think of ANYONE who has received more due process than
              Terri Schiavo.  THIRTY court decisions, state and federal, EVERY
              one of them ruling
              for Michael Schiavo, and against the parents.  This is unusual
              since usually this many court cases will have at least ONE
              ruling that goes against the others.  The "due process" the
              "Culture of Life" supporters want is for her to be hooked up to
              machines until she dies of old age.  And of course, no mention
              is made by them of the DOZENS of people who could have been
              helped with the tens of millions of dollars in legal fees and
              medical care, resources and time wasted on keeping this brain
              stem functioning.  People who could actually get better and
              live a meaningful life because of being healed.
              one of them ruling for Michael Schiavo, and against the
              parents.  This is unusual since usually this many court cases
              will have at least ONE ruling that goes against the others.
              The "due process" the "Culture of Life" supporters want is for
              her to be hooked up to machines until she dies of old age.
              And of course, no mention is made by them of the DOZENS of
              people who could have been helped with the tens of millions of
              dollars in legal fees and medical care, resources and time
              wasted on keeping this brain stem functioning.  People who
              could actually get better and live a meaningful life because
              of being healed.
              \_ her case was only reviewed in full once, by one judge.
                 This judge received campaign contributions from Felos.
                 This judge is legally blind.
                 All of the others were decided in 90 minutes, not de novo.
                 How can a judge review the evidence from a 15 year case
                 in 90 minutes when it is a life and death matter?
                 I think you are blissfully ignorant about the facts
                 surrounding her sentence.  David Boeis
                 and Derschowitz support a de novo review, doesn't that
                 tell you something.  Clearly you understand the
                 significance and precedent setting nature of this case,
                 which is why you've become so upset.  All that most are asking
                 is a full vetting of the facts.
                 surrounding her sentence.  David Boeis and Derschowitz
                 support a de novo review, doesn't that tell you something.
                 Clearly you understand the significance and precedent
                 setting nature of this case, which is why you've become so
                 upset.  All that most are asking is a full vetting of the
                 facts.
                 \_ Upon what basis do you call this precedent setting?  This
                    sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME.  Thousands of families
                    have to make this decision every year.  I'm sure in
                    hundreds of those cases, there are disputes which end up
                    in the courts.  The only precedent set here is the level
                    of hypocrisy in our federal legislature.
                 \_ The majority of America does not agree with your assessment
                    \_ Bullshit.
                       \_ No, really.
                          \_ No, bullshit.  You're are misrepresenting polls,
                             etc.
                                \_ Even evangelical Christians think the
                                   courts have it right.  The polls are
                                   not being misrepresented, the courts did not
                                   screw up -- you are just wrong -- but I
                                   know no FACTS will convince you of this.
                                   Her cerebral cortex is just spinal fluid
                                   but fundies want to claim she is "minimally
                                   conscious" thanks to 4+ hours of footage
                                   edited Oliver Stone-style into 4 minutes
                                   of propaganda.  At least in a few
                                   days this will be all over, an autopsy
                                   will show her brain was just mush, and
                                   the fundies can find the next illogical
                                   position to take and rant about.
                 \_ Actually what was decided in 90 mins is whether a
                    TRO should be granted or not. A TRO is designed to
                    maintain/change the status quo so that one party
                    is not unduly damaged while the case proceeds. In
                    deciding whether a TRO can be granted the judge
                    needs to see whether the party seeking the TRO
                    has a strong change of winning at trial. In this
                    case, there was basically no chance of winning at
                    trial based on the record presented to the judge
                    (which is all the judge can use at this stage to
                    determine if a TRO can be granted), thus refusal
                    of the TRO was appropriate.
                    There is also some ambiguity about what exactly
                    the judge is authorized to do by the act of
                    congress. The act does not specify de novo trial.
                    It simply specifies de novo. This could be de
                    novo review which means that the judge cannot
                    consider new evidence but must rely only on the
                    record as presented. Also keep in mind that every
                    fed judge in the middle dist of FL and all of
                    their law clerks, &c. have probably been reviewing
                    the record for some time since it looked like
                    congress was going to do something dumb, thus
                    they probably had a good idea about how to rule
                    on various motions, such as a TRO.