Rubber Stamping Terri's Dehydration
When Congress directed the federal courts to take a fresh look at the Schiavo case, it was to be "de novo," that is, to relook at the evidence with a fresh eye. Yet, Judge James D. Whittemore looks to have been more of a rubber stamp.
For example, the federal courts were to determine whether the clear and convincing evidence standard had been applied to determining Terri's desires. Remember, all we have are hearsay statements from Michael, his brother, and his brother's wife. Also, Michael told conflicting stories to different courts. When he wanted $, he told a malpractice jury Terri would live a normal lifespan. When he wanted Terri dead, he said she urged him not to let her live in her present circumstances.
Yet, rather than look at the evidence itself--which is what a de novo review is supposed to do-- Judge Whittemore states, "The state judge applied the heightened clear and convincing evidence standard in determining her intentions, as permitted by Cruzan and in accordance with [statute # omitted]."
UNBELIEVABLE. Judge Greer stated he applied the standard so I find he applied the standard. That is not a de novo review! The sense of profound injustice in Schiavo only continues to grow.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 6:42 AM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
Isn't it sad to the point of uncontrollable sobbing how "checks and balances" can so often lead to absolute stagnation?
Even in the event of life and death matters.
This is not checks and balances in my view, but judicial defiance. Thanks for commenting
I haven't read the legal arguments yet, but certainly we don't live under a judicial tyranny?
That all depends. If we like their rulings, then no, we don't live under a judicial tyranny. However, if we don't like their rulings, then yes, we live under a judicial tyranny.
The problem is that the manner in which this particular judicial tyrant ruled, it became "Greer's Law" and not the law of the land. That is the standard that was applied throughout the court system.
To me the whole process in this case was corrupt from start to finish. The rulings were pathetic. The rule of a reasonable man was not followed. The only rule that was followed was "Michael Schiavo is the husband and Terri is his chattel and he can do as he wishes to her body and soul".
I am concerned about a number of anomolies in this particular case. The idea of accepting evidence from someone who has such a conflict of interest to me is the setting of a very dangerous precedent. How can a man who cannot even get correct the date of his marriage (that is the year) suddenly remember an alleged statement of his wife that happened 3 years prior to the incident and was remembered 8 years after that? Shouldn't that be a red flag for suspicion? Also why did the brother and sister in law come forward only after Richard Pearse, the first guardian ad litem, stated in his report that there was a clear conflict of interest and that Terri's tube should not be pulled?
In my mind, and using the rule of thumb of the reasonable man, I cannot accept the testimony of either husband and brother in law as being clear and convincing. All other evidence was dismissed.
At the same time it must be remembered that the probate court judge also ruled that anyone who claimed that Terri was cognizant had evidence that was seriously flawed. Come again? Why is it that he did not consider the mountains of evidence from people stating that the woman was cognizant?
One last question: If the examining doctor at Bayfront nursing home said that the patient was "awake", does that mean that he considered her not to be comatose?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home