Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

One wonders what went wrong in the GOP judge reeducation workshop. Senator Frothy Mixture of Fecal Matter and Lube is gonna be pissssssed.

Whoa
I'm guessing that Justice Kennedy will be hearing shortly from the Schindler family.

for Spanky
 

He has a Nobel Prize, so he's pretty much authorized to steal stuff. At least I think that's the way it works.

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

Does anyone know if the Full Faith & Credit Clause obliges the federal government to respect state judgments?

Quality Control at CBSNews.com
 

Your points are legitimate -- but your statements about the SOM hearsay exception under FRE 803 [or the state equivalent] are incorrect. You also seem to miss the point that even a written living will is no more than hearsay evidence of then-existing state of mind. [Though it is much more reliable hearsay because it is written, notarized and signed.]

In the absence of evidence that one has changed one's views -- by either revoking a living will or, in the absence of a document, making contradictory verbal statements at a later date -- the most recent evidence of state of mind is properly presumed to hold. I think that is the right result.

I'm not in favor of a system where one must be sustained forever (unless everyone quietly agrees to secretly pull the plug). We had that already. I also think that, while a written directive is to be strongly encouraged -- it should not necessarily be required. Thus, we're stuck with messy fact-finding situations.

S_A_M

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

Public policy exception?

Quality Control at CBSNews.com
 

Side note only - this is why you want some form of durable power of attorney to accompany any living will document.

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

I know there is one, but how can you argue with a straight face that a public policy exception applies when you're talking about federal legislation designed to apply to only one person?

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

This Schiavo matter may have been the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I may have to change my registration.

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

It is truly disgraceful. This whole affair sickens and disgusts me.

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

Do you think I really care one iota about this, other than seeing a few lefty posters on here getting their knickers in a twist?

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

I suspect many blue-state Republicans feel this way, but I think Schiavo is all about emotional appeals to the red state base.

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

Me? Personally? I don't do anything with a straight face.

(Especially defending this new federal coup.)

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

I think this reflects the fact that judges have been struggling with these issues for a long time in case after anonymous case. I think the judiciary probably feels they've worked through many of the toughest issues and have a modus operandi of dealing with them.

We will see if there is any move now to start changing the modus operandi with legislation.

Quality Control at CBSNews.com
 

Yes. My wife and I both have DHCPOAs (for each other) with living will directives written into the text.

(Interesting (to me) differences in the directives.)

Anyhow, while I disagree with you somewhat on the "where's the harm" analysis, RT has said it better so I'll remain still on that point.

I do think you are, for whatever reason, putting high value on the emotions and desires of the parents and low value on the emotions and desires of the husband. While I understand he's not a hard man to dislike, I have at least as much sympathy for his position as theirs. Perhaps because my kids are very young, I see this through the "What if it were my wife?" framework rather than the "What if it were my child?".

[NB: Schiavo's attorney says he is with his wife at the hospice, and intends to remain there until she dies. That sugests to me that he believes in what he's doing.]

I have a very good relationship with all of my in-laws, so I doubt this could ever happen in my family (plus we have DHCPOAs). But -- if she was ever in such a state, I would probably keep her around until past the time I'd lost all hope but couldn't admit it (probably in violation of her living will). Still I think 3-4 years -- as in this case -- would certainly do it.

Then, once I had decided, I'd see that her wishes were carried out. If her family tried to stop me, because they wanted to tend to her meat, I would do as I believed she had wished. After the first time they suggested I was in it for her life insurance policy, or had "abandoned" her, I would no longer feel bad about crushing them in a court of law.

As to why they didn't just walk away -- I think that's a question one can ask of the parents as well as the husband. I think you'd get the same answer.

S_A_M

for Spanky
 

Who knew Becker had such a big forehead?

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

Welcome!

S_A_M

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

Ah. Well, color me embarrassed.

I didn't think of you as a troll before, but if that's your goal, consider it done. Have fun. Peace out.

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

STP -- "righty", you mean.

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

To what?

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

Gallop did a poll - All groups, DEMS, GOP and Independents, polled believe by healthy margins that she shold be permitted to die.

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

Even if you just consider Republicans in red states who call themselves conservative Christians and worship Tom DeLay as the second coming?

You've got to think of the core constituency.

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

I realize that. It just seems odd to take this on when a strong majority of your party disagrees with it.

Who's your daddy, Hank?
 

George Bush, 10/29/04:

• Unfortunately – unfortunately, my opponent, tonight, continued to say things he knows are not true – accusing our military of passing up a chance to get Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora. As the Commander in charge of that operation, Tommy Franks had said, it’s simply not the case.

Hank Chinaski, 10/20/04:

• General Franks takes my side on the Tora Bora issue. Does this mean I win?
  
  
  Quote:

  First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we "had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden" and that "we had him surrounded." We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir. Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.

Associated Press, 3/23/05:

• A terror suspect held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, helped the al-Qaida leader escape his mountain hide-out at Tora Bora in 2001, according to a U.S. government document.
  
  The document, provided in response to a Freedom of Information request, says the unidentified detainee ''assisted in the escape of Osama bin Laden from Tora Bora.'' It is the first definitive statement from the Pentagon that bin Laden was at Tora Bora and evaded U.S. pursuers.

The lesson: Lying works!

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

It's a chance to add to your right-to-life credentials with minimal political cost. Plus, DeLay needs something to distract everyone from his ethical lapses, and Bill Frist wants W's Christian bloc in '08.

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

Unfortunately, most people thought they were being asked about Barbara Streisand.

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

My guesses are as follows:

1.) Activists! Activists! in the Judicary.

2.) Distraction. 2 year anniversary of Iraq war. Social Security "reform" sort of sputtering. The House Majority Leader's small ethical problems that seem to mount daily. You're the only one as far as I can tell that's not been distracted by this whole thing.

3.) Most importantly. Pissed off religious right that was threatening to loudly bolt because ya'll were spending too much time on stuff like bankruptcy and social security and North Korea when you should have been saving the soul of the nation. They brought in the votes but weren't seeing no love. Ya gotta dance with those what brung you and all that.

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

Does your analysis allow for room for people who are sincerely troubled by society's seemingly coarsening attitudes towards the sanctity of life? Who are maybe choosing the wrong case in which to speak up, but whose motives are something a bit more honorable than how you characterize them?

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

Awww, did they not incwude oozums, ickle bunny boy? Maybe you should fax your officey-wofficy number to all the pollster-wollsters.

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

I disagree on #2. The war is a positive for this administration right now, and no one gives a shit about Delay, other than you.

On #3, I'd say "stay home" instead of bolt. They're not going to the other side.

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

You know, I count myself among these, and I am a Dem who could support legislation that took a different tact than pure self-determination in plug-pulling.

But the circus over this poor woman and her family, and the way Congress (with little opposition from the Dems, by the way), the President, and brother Jeb have handled it, is just downright disgusting, opportunist, and unprincipled.

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

I'm troubled by it, but as long as we allow people to choose to refuse medical treatment, this is not an issue in this case.

Interesting info
 

Here's a different take on the brain scan stuff that I hadn't seen before, written in a fairly well-respected doc's blog. He strongly disagrees with the current accepted line on the decomposed CC. Brain scans included so you can play along.

(If he's a quack, someone tell me. It's my impression that he's not.)

http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codebl...dblogs_co.html

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

Not really, because I was mainly looking at Congress and the President's actions. I don't really think of that level of politician as particularly moral.

ETA: And because the Dems in the House were merely told "vote your conscious." The Republican talking points aren't exaclty something to be proud of.

Quality Control at CBSNews.com
 

That your questions were addressed repeatedly over the past few days, by, among others, RT and me.

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

When you say gov't, you mean the judiciary, which has developed doctrines such as Rooker-Feldman, to do essentially that? Or do you mean Congress, which is all-powerful and is free to ignore almost any result a state reaches?

Quality Control at CBSNews.com
 

I didn't have any questions, but thanks for the tip.

Quality Control at CBSNews.com
 

I would rephrase what Burger said as "because what you say is what so many other people have said on here over the past few days, over and over again, and so you are repetitive and boring and could have just done a "2" post in response to one of the many, many posts that said what you bothered to write a whole paragraph on. And the tone of your post was that everyone on here wasn't smart enough to figure out what you had the brilliant insight to see. It was kind of bilmore-esque, in the worst sense of bilmore-esqosity -- not even punny."

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

There are times when I can discern, through the haze, what points you were attempting to make, and then sort of charitably give you credit for them.

I can't even do that for this one.

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

I meant Congress, inasmuch as Article IV doesn't refer only to certain branches of the federal government. But it would appear to apply to states respecting other states' judgment, as opposed to a decision by the federal government to undo retroactively a state judgment.

Interesting info
 

Dunno. I see him cited on Grand Rounds from time to time (btw, that's a great medical blog round up every week, I try not to miss it).

This is one of the neurologists who testified in the case. I would hope that he had more than just access to this single CT scan.

BTW, the privacy stuff is beginning to piss me off. I realize that the trial was before April 14, 2003, but it irritates my HIPAA compliant sensibiliites that someone's medical records are all over the internet like this. I really, really feel sorry for the privacy officer in that nursing home.