[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Ugh, okay, so then look at the federal appeals system. Why does it exist? Why even have the higher courts if everything could be handled within its local jurisdiction?

Her case went up for federal appeal, and they declined to hear it. It's a right the federal appeals court has.

Right, and again we come back to the disagreement. Of course the judges who have ruled on this know better, just like the state court in a death row appeal knows better than you or I. That doesn't mean that case has been given an entirely fair shake, nor does it mean a higher judge would rule in the same direction. Those judges are pretty smart, too.

So are you suggesting that every court case invovling life or death MUST be heard by a federal court? I don't know if I'd agree or disagree with that, but that's not how it works right now.

I do know that he won a malpractice suit, with a lump of the cash going towards personal damages, on the grounds that he intended to get nursing training to care for his wife.

$300,000 to him for damages and $700,000 for Terri's estate. (http://www.abstractappeal.com/index.html) Also, it has gone on the record that Terri's parents stopped speaking to Michael after he refused to share any of the $300,000 with them. Which to me, suggests a sort of greed underlying this whole ordeal that, if true, would make me think the whole lot of them are sick.

So if a state bans gay marriage, you respect that ruling, and don't want the federal government interfering in any way? I just want to be clear on what your "yes" and "no" are actually saying.

Correct. I also think if a state bans ALL marriage, then the Federal courts should not intervene, because the legal definiton of marriage is that of a contract. Marriage as a form of commitment, expression of love, religious ceremony, etc, is NOT bannable by any form of government, but it doesn't carry any legal bindings.

I think this is an excellent point, one that the born again constructionists seem to ignore. Yes, the Schiavo Act was a piece of legislation geared towards one person. But this person is in immediate need, and if this act by Congress has brought attention to the broader issue, then that's good.

You seem to be disregarding the fact that the federal courts DECLINED to hear the case. Again, should every case have to go through the federal courts, and if so why even bother with the local courts?

There are in fact Republicans in Congress who have been putting together legislation on this kind of stuff, but nobody has realy cared up to this point. Now all of a sudden people are concerned about living wills, and proxy legal of attorney, etc. etc.

Dunno if I already said this here or not, but most states have a couple of times where they can ask young men if they wish to register for selective service. I think those times would be an ideal time to question them on living wills and such. Or when you go to get your driver's license and they ask you if you wanna be an organ donor - let them also ask if you wanna be hooked up to machines indefinitely if you can't speak for yourself.