The Bush Legacy
 

I think you should work DNC PR.

The Bush Legacy
 

She and I tag team.

The Bush Legacy
 

You should have said that the jackass is the symbol of the D party, not the R party.

Quality Control at CBSNews.com
 

If they aren't there to defend Democracy and our way of life, then why are they there? Iraq had not presented an iminent direct threat to the US when it was invaded.

And I may be many things, Bilmore, but vacuous is not one of them.

The Bush Legacy
 

Huh? Big fat bloated sexual deviants are the symbol of the modern democratic party.

The Bush Legacy
 

You overestimate my influence, pankie.

The Bush Legacy
 

But the Republican party is not merely about not giving more of what's yours to others than you think is right. It's also about telling us what we can and can't watch on television and listen to on radio. And it's about telling the people who create pollution that they can create more of it.

But mostly, these days, it's about lowering the taxes of the wealthy and spending like a madman, because after all, they'll all be dead and gone before the shit hits the fan.

SOS W
 

Call the White House NOW and ask that the President place Terri in protective custody!

White House Switchboard: 202-456-1414

The Bush Legacy
 

I didn't mean you sweets- you're too thin to be a powerful democratic woman, and their women tend to celebates not deviants.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/goddardnews...'keefe.jpg

The Bush Legacy
 

I'm sorta both. Whoo hoo! That make me a super-dem!

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

Senator Frothy Mixture of Fecal Matter and Lube

Uh, so why didn't you pass a law ordering the reinsertion of the feeding tube? Why bother to send the case to federal courts for review? Via Off the Kuff

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

We adore Santorum in PA. So much so that the PA Democratic party has nominated a pro-life, anti-gun control, son of a well-loved past gov. to run against him and told everyone else to back off.

Who knows if it will work.

Screw the law, chad87655 has spoken
 

[Guardian Ad Litem Report] Interesting report. Thanks for posting. It seems to dismiss the idea that the hubby is doing this b/c of $$. But if the law really seeks to determine what (absent a living will) Theresa said about artificial life support, then I think there's a major problem here. When she first collapsed, the hubby was apparently aware of all the statements his wife had allegedly made about not wanting artificial life support. But despite evidence of the chronicness of her state, he went on for years (I suppose against her wishes to die, then, if you believe she made the statements the hubby says she made) fighting hard for her to keep the tube and get her the best care.

In all fairness, maybe he thought she could recover and when in 1994 he first asked that some care be refused, he was starting to accept that she wasn't going to recover even though the medical evidence showed from the beginning that she wasn't going to improve much. That's touching, but what sort of treatment Terri would have wanted (i.e., convincing evidence in the absence of a living will) should not depend on when her husband decided to throw in the towel. Terri's hearsay statements seem colored by the fact that the husband trotted them out only after he stopped hoping for her recovery.

Screw the law, chad87655 has spoken
 

OH MY GOD IN HEAVEN you are so annoying. Most people only want to have life support removed if there is no chance of recovery. They don't want to spend the last years of their lives hooked up to machines. On the other hand, most of us would endure a couple years of life support, perhaps, if we could make a full recovery. I mean, hell, I'm incredibly pro-death, and even I would go for that. I certainly don't want them to refuse to have me in ICU EVER because there's some possibility I might not recover. Breathing machines are fine if my lungs are only temporarily collapsed or whatever.

Soooo, her wishes as to how she wants the end of her life to be aren't really pertinent while there is reasonable hope of recovery.

The Bush Legacy
 

Most of the dems aren't both- one or the other. This one would be much less objectionable if only both.....

http://www.oxfordstudent.com/article.../668/0009.jpeg

Screw the law, chad87655 has spoken
 

How is that different than you spending all day posting here? Get out and enjoy the spring fringey. How many more springs do you have left? Don't you wonder. For godness sakes.

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

Because you're missing the whole point of the law. C'mon, it wasn't about saving Terri Schiavo. This is all about the continuing effort by Congress to identify activist judges, a role that is clearly consistent with the ideals of the Founding Fathers. Sheesh.

Screw the law, chad87655 has spoken
 

I derive a perverse pleasure from this.

SOS W
 

Call the White House NOW and ask if they have Sir Walter Raleigh in a can!

White House Switchboard: 202-456-1414

SOS W
 

Just called. My friends at the White House tell me the switchboard is overwhelmed. Vote life! Save Terri! Call! Now!

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

Strikes me that teh plaintiffs also made a pleading error. They didn't ask for a trial, just a TRO. Although maybe there's a separate pleading. But how is the judge supposed to have a trial overnight?

SOS W
 

Hey, I just called too! But I asked them to page Heywood Jablomi. They did! Hilarity!

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

I think they intended to have a TRO pending a trial -- the question is, why are they appealing the TRO but not trying to go straight to trial?

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

They want the feeding tube reinserted. If they wait for a trial the whole thing could be moot.

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

Forgive this non-litigator for asking, but why not try to do both? Can they not move to trial while appealing the TRO?

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

You normally do both at once. The TRO is part and parcel to a trial in which you are likely to win on the merits.

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

This non-litigator has no idea. Perhaps they are, but the media is only reporting the TRO appeal? Any litigators wanna weigh in?

too slow - leagl already answered.

Quality Control at CBSNews.com
 

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

How about, "save millions of lives"? Very little procedural about that.

And, when you can say the system is more important than a life, I have to shudder.

The Bush Legacy
 

Objection. Unresponsive.

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

It was always my impression that you had to do both - that the TRO would only be considered if you were also setting up to have the issue be properly determined after the initial harm was avoided.

(Sigh.) STP.

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

As others have alluded you typically do both at once. The purpose of the TRO is to preserve the status quo until a full hearing on the merits. Most of the news reports describe the new legislation as requiring a trial de novo. (FWIW: I have not seen the legislation) If that is the case, yes, they may have screwed up by not requesting a hearing on the merits in conjunction with the TRO.

Lesson learned form this? One should not use the Catholic legal help desk to find competent appellate counsel in Florida.

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

That's basically my question. They figured they'd get a TRO, and then they'd still have a trial, but the momentum would be to leave the tube in and the trial would be over whether to remove it. Yet, what's odd is there's no effort to have a full trial on the merits scheduled, even an abbreviated one. What's more, a TRO lasts only 10 days--they want a preliminary injunction as well, but haven't sought that (can't get that, though, if they can't get a TRO).

Anyway, having lost the TRO, it seems that they should fight the battle on two levels--the CTA for the TRO and push the trial court to expedite the full-merits trial.

Is the battle truly over just the TRO? I suppose if they win at the CTA, they can go back the trial court and get a prelim. injunction, but he still needs to hold a full trial (and hubby will force it) sooner or later.

Penske has been busy!
 

Seeing this made me think fondly of socks from years gone by, like Hillary's Fat Ass.

http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_...60/2008cc1.swf

Amusing cartoon re: Hillary in 2008. Contains sound, otherwise not work inappropriate if you can stomach seeing Hillary in fishnets.

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

Without the TRO, she's dead before thay can have any meaningful trial.

Not to be to cynical, but it will take them some time to line up any new bullshit and wrap it in a pretty bow, while the husband can lean on lengthy trial/hearing record(s) and favorable prior rulings. Much easier for his side.

S_A_M

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

I didn't even read the stuff - did the new fed action simply give them the right to take the issue up to the fedcourt, but on the exact same legal arguments that have lost so many times before?

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

Sure they can, but, again, the TRO is essential -- so focus on it.

Burger said that he'd seen better pleadings from pro se prisoners. I was going to say something about purple crayon, but passed. Despite what Santorum said, the Court ruled on the causes of action presented to it. [In fairness to the parents' lawyers, they have very little to work with.]

S_A_M

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

Wow. With so much GOP political candlepower focused on it, you'd imagine that they could dig some hi-falutin' litigators to work on this, no?

[IMG]C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\Clintonportrait.gif[/IMG]

You need to upload the pic somewhere to post it.