Court's decisions called for intervention
A judge ordered an innocent woman put to death last month. Lethal injection? Nope. Electrocution? Nope. Starvation.
The U.S. Congress stepped in and asked the court to review the case. The court refused. The woman was to die, said the court. Why? Because her "husband" said so, that's why.
No other proof was offered to the court except the husband's word that she said she wanted to die rather than live a life in a state of vegetation. Never mind the parents' pleas to spare their daughter's life.
Now, if you believe the media polls, Americans say that Congress should not have interfered. Seems to me that when judges start sentencing innocent people to die, for no reason other than a medical condition, it's the Congress' job to intervene. I wouldn't want to be represented by politicians who wouldn't stand up for the rights of their citizens.
Would it upset you if Gov. Bush refused to accept the judge's decision and took matters into his own hands? Then why doesn't it upset you that the judge was doing just that? Perhaps it's high time the judicial branch of this government is held accountable for its actions and decisions.
Jim Sartwell
Liberty
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I didn't want to see her die either, but in order to uphold any sanctity of marriage, the husband does have the say-so in a situation such as that.
Posted on April 4, 2005 12:39 PM
Boy, this guy sure took a gulp of the conservative KoolAid. Dude, she wasn't 'sentenced' to die. Only criminal defendants are sentenced after they are found guilty!
Posted on April 4, 2005 3:55 PM
I agree with you Jim. If he knew that she wouldn't want to live that way then why did he wait so long?
And Brian, speaking of the sanctity of marriage, when he had lived with "the other woman" and had children by her. Wonder how she felt while he was holding his wife in his arms (was in the news) while he was letting her starve to death.
I'm not trying to be rude or ugly but to me it was just so wrong to let Terri starve to death when she had a loving family to take care of her. I believe that she knew more than some of the doctors testified to.
Posted on April 4, 2005 10:00 PM
He waited so long because his in-laws kept going to court(about 26 times)over several yrs and he spent almost a million bucks for her care, and lawyers, trying to do what she wanted done. The courts ruled 26-0 in his favor and that is a perfect score. I'm sure they had more info to reach their conclusions than the lay people had.
Who knows how many years the in-laws put him thru hell over this and just how many years passed before he got a girl friend? More power to him...
Posted on April 5, 2005 12:12 AM
It's also worth pointing out that the court's conclusion that Terri would not want to be kept alive in this state was based on much more than just Michael Schiavo's testimony; Terri had expressed similar sentiments to several other people.
All the info you could want (straight from the courts' documents) is on this page:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
Posted on April 5, 2005 5:31 AM
Jonathan, Thank you for supplying all who care about facts with the web site. Don't be surprised, though, if this wealth of information is lost on those who need it the most. It is unfortunate that there are always those who want it their way and want everyone else to have to follow their lead regardless of facts.
Marshall said it best in his post re another letter: This matter was a very decision and we owe all the family of Ms. Schiavo just that-privacy. He also said they owe us nothing which I agree with 100%.
So folks, please, may we move on and discuss the implications of what happened and our thoughts about those implications? Any futher discussion about the specific case of Ms. Schiavo is not going to change anything in regards to the outcome of that case.
Posted on April 6, 2005 10:53 AM