Everyone who is making any attempt to follow this should read the federal court decision denying the injunction. It's here in a pdf version. The judge, having to deal with the lawsuit the parents filed, says: 1) They say they didn't have due process, a couple of different ways (for instance, arguing that the jugde should be required to bring Terri to court). They had an extaordinary amount of due process-- he notes a state appeals court observation that the case had more due process than any other case of that type, ever. 2) They say the state-court judge became an advocate because we lost. 3) They say it denies equal protection to treat Terri differently than the non-disabled. Of course, equal protection allows treating manifestly different situations as different. 4) They say removing the feeding tube violates her religious freedom.
Any non-ax-grinding lawyer would see these as frivolous. The federal judge did-- and because they are frivolous, he was oath-bound to deny a temporary restraining order.
I still think one of the worst things about this brouhaha is the fuel it provides to the already dangerous rhetoric of the right disparaging judges and the judicial process and separation of powers. Today's NYTimes has an article about it.
You've seen Lindsay's post Lies Terri Schiavo's Parents Told Me, right?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-22-05 2:39 PM
Shit, no.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03-22-05 2:42 PM
Everyone who is making any attempt to follow this should read the federal court decision denying the injunction. It's here in a pdf version. The judge, having to deal with the lawsuit the parents filed, says: 1) They say they didn't have due process, a couple of different ways (for instance, arguing that the jugde should be required to bring Terri to court). They had an extaordinary amount of due process-- he notes a state appeals court observation that the case had more due process than any other case of that type, ever. 2) They say the state-court judge became an advocate because we lost. 3) They say it denies equal protection to treat Terri differently than the non-disabled. Of course, equal protection allows treating manifestly different situations as different. 4) They say removing the feeding tube violates her religious freedom.
Any non-ax-grinding lawyer would see these as frivolous. The federal judge did-- and because they are frivolous, he was oath-bound to deny a temporary restraining order.
This is way-past nauseating.
Posted by TomFreeland | Link to this comment | 03-22-05 3:19 PM
I still think one of the worst things about this brouhaha is the fuel it provides to the already dangerous rhetoric of the right disparaging judges and the judicial process and separation of powers. Today's NYTimes has an article about it.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03-22-05 8:59 PM
Oh shit, I hadn't read the post two below this yet.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 03-22-05 9:01 PM
At least we know your agreement isn't motivated by peer pressure.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03-22-05 9:02 PM