[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

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

Right, they denied to question the previous verdicts made on the case as it was. What Congress did was open up an avenue for the fed. courts to re-evaluate the entire case.

My point was this, federal courts, and the federal government have stepped into the matters of the state. They've prevented states from doing things, this isn't a novelty.

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.

OMG, no, that's not what I'm fucking saying. What I'm saying is that a convicted killer can appeal and appeal and appeal to the highest court in the land if they'll hear him. I support that process, and I detest what states like Florida and Texas are doing to wipe away that necessary process that rules out doubt.

THAT is what I want. I want all doubt removed, and I don't believe it has been. Yes, that's my opinion, not a Florida judges, not a medical doctor's. But it's not my opinion alone.

$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.

Yeah, I read that too. But I think the gripe came over what kind of rehab the money would be spent on. I think the Schindler's felt his methods were either ineffective or not effective enough.

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.

Okay, cool. And just for another example, what do you think of prior efforts made by the federal government to prevent ANWR drilling in Alaska, even against the wishes of the Alaskan legislature (of course now a moot issue, but relevant for the comparisons purpose)?

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?

Certain judges refused to question the legality of the decisions made on the case as it was presented. They weren't deciding over and over again that Terri Schiavo was a vegetable, they simply refused to question the previous argument.

A new argument can however be made, a broader one. They will possibly have the chance to review this case. There's a difference.

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.

This is a good idea, although I'm not sure how effective it would be. I worked for a voter registration group that proposed the same thing, make sure every DMV (I think most already have it), every governmental level of bureacracy, as well as other places, offered options for voter registration.

The problem with this is that you're then relying on the person who issues you your license, or who handles some other task, to take care of your voting capabilities (remove voter reg from this scenario, and insert living will material). These people don't necessarily care about these things, and thus don't/wouldn't aggressively push you to take care of these things.

I guess there's only so much we can ask and/or want the federal government to do in terms of shaping our behavior. That, IMO, is why this case will be historical and important. Hopefully families and couples are looking at these people, how torn they are, how sad and frustrated, and realize that that's exactly the last thing they'd want.