Theban_Legion said:
I am not representing nor misrepresenting anything.
Am I not entitled to an opinion of an event? Our opinions differ, so what?
No judge is infallible, and I am not required to accept any judicial ruling hook, line, and sinker.
I saw the videos of Ms. Schiavo responding to her family. She was not a corpse.
The judge was wrong.
A PAC is not required. The DNC is doing a fine job. If you would like, you can vist Ms. Schiavo's grave and see for yourself.
JUDGES:There was more than a single judge who ruled on this issue.
Had you followed that findlaw link I submitted, you would have found the following:
"The Trial Court found by clear and convincing evidence that Theresa Schiavo was in a persistent vegitative state and that Theresa would elect to cease life-prolonging procedures if she were competent to make her own decision."
An appellate court agreed with this finding.
The Florida Supreme Court: Judge Wells, Judge Anstead, Judge Lewis, Judge Quince, Judge Cantero, and Judge Bell ruled that the trial court made the correct assessment, and that the Florida Senate and Florida Governor overstepped their roles by writing Terri's Law.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals first had three judges review the case. Two of the three judges, Judge Carnes, and Judge Hull, ruled against re-inserting the feeding tube.
The complete 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a hearing in the case. Chief Judge Edmondson, Judge Tjoflat, Judge Anderson, Judge Birch, Judge Dubina, Judge Black, Judge Carnes, Judge Barkett, Judge Hull, Judge Marcus, Judge Wilson, and Judge Prior heard an appeal.
Judge Tjoflat and Judge Wilson ruled in favor of 'the family' by saying there is reason to hear the case.
Justice Kennedy, from the Supreme Court of the United States, denied an application to review the case before the Supreme Court.
You are entitled to your opinion.
In this instance, the
judges, I think, have a great deal more credibility in their opinions and in their rulings.
