Schiavo - Judges and The People

[bevin]

Quote:

---

who some judicial panel ordered to be killed by starvation?

---

The judicial panel found that

(1) WHEN TERRI WAS A MENTALLY COMPETENT ADULT SHE EXPRESSED A STRONG WISH NOT TO BE KEPT ALIVE IN A PARTICULAR MEDICAL STATE

(2) SHE MARRIED MICHAEL AND GAVE HIM THE OBLIGATION TO HAVE HER WISHES CARRIED OUT

(3) SHE IS IN SUCH A MEDICAL STATE

(4) HER WISHES MUST BE FOLLOWED OUT

They did not order her killed. They simply are defending her right, as a mentally competent adult, to specify what her medical treatment might be in the future.

This is not difficult to understand. Why do so many people, and especially christians, not get it?

/Bevin

[Ron Lambert]

Terri Schiavo finally died--she survived 13 days without food or water. Amazing persistence of life.

[Ron Lambert]

All those things depend upon the testimony of Michael Schiavo, who has zero credibility.

[Ron Lambert]

Terri Schiavo was not only murdered, she was tortured to death. 13 days without food or water! That is how the inmates at Dachau and Auschwitz were treated. How many of you are really all right with that?

[Robert]

Quote:

---

How many of you are really all right with that?

---

I am not all right with this at all!

[Robert]

Quote:

---

(1) WHEN TERRI WAS A MENTALLY COMPETENT ADULT SHE EXPRESSED A STRONG WISH NOT TO BE KEPT ALIVE IN A PARTICULAR MEDICAL STATE

---

Terri left no signed document stating this supposed wish. Funny how Michael waited 7 years before following through on Terri's "strong wish"!

It's rather simple to me....Michael moved on - had two children with another woman. Common sense should tell any judge that Michael did not have her best interest at heart. So my anger is directed more to those judges than Michael.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

It's rather simple to me....Michael moved on - had two children with another woman.

---

And according to news reports, spent the last week with Terri.

Quote:

---

Common sense should tell any judge that Michael did not have her best interest at heart. So my anger is directed more to those judges than Michael.

---

And if you had read the court records , you would see that the judge had his doubts about Micheal. Those doubts were expressed in the court records.

If you had read the court records , you would realized that the court is bound to error on the side of life.

If you had read the court records, you would have seen the judge was convinced that other people had expressed Terri's desire not to live like this.

If you had read the court records, you would have seen that the court was convinced after cross examinination that Terri would not have wanted to be this way.

The problem is that you have not read the court records. Instead, you went to the sites that play upon your emotions and then you made a decision based upon the emotion of the moment. And now, because you can not go back and undo your decision without losing face, you need to carry out this ..... [for lack of a better term]...farce.

Quote:

---

I am not all right with this at all!

---

And it is perfectly alright to feel this way ...It is called emotions and they can be pretty powerful.

Terry is dead. Let her rest in peace.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

If you had read the court records , you would realized that the court is bound to error on the side of life.

---

And...if you look at the news, you would realize that they murdered her instead!

[bevin]

Quote:

---

It's rather simple to me

---

of course it is simple to you Ron. You have never let a fact or a logical argument get in the way of an emotive diatribe.

I strongly suspect that this is just a trolling persona that you put on when you come to Club Adventist, just to see how many people you can get to react to such foolish positions.

/Bevin

[Neil D]

Robert,

I know the difference between tabloid news, and journalism and court records....

Please don't let your emotions get in the way of reason and the reassurance that the judges got NO monentary renumerounce for condemning Terri to death. Please understand that the judges are trying to what is right by all, especially by Terri. They are required by law to err on the side of life if there is any doubt....I know the judges can make mistakes, but a review by other judges over 6 times, found no reason to overturn the decision of the Judge Greer. And those appellate courts LOVE to overturn decisions.....

Tabloid news, on the other hand, is out to sell thier stories. They are out to look for outrageous news...They found one in Terri case...

[Ron Lambert]

Bevin, the quote you attributed to me was written by Robert.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Please understand that the judges are trying to what is right by all, especially by Terri

---

How righteous of them....I'm sure Terri didn't mind one bit about starving to death.

[Dr. Shane]

Congress did something that many judges think shouldn't be done. Congress told the judiciary to forget about earlier rulings and start from a clean slate. Appeals courts don't do that. They always take into account how earlier courts have ruled. That is why many of the judges were so upset by the action taken by Congress and the President. They don't want the Congress (i.e. the people) telling them how to do thier job.

Well, guess what? The judge that wrote the minority opinion got it right. Congress does have the power to tell a court to ignore ealier rulings and to start with a clean slate. Far from being outside of the will of the founding fathers, many of the founders did not want a powerful judiciary. The founders wanted the people to have power - not a small, select group of people dressed in black.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Bevin, the quote you attributed to me was written by Robert.

---

Sigh. Blush.

/Bevin

[Ron Lambert]

Actually, Neil, judges seldom if ever overturn a lower judge's ruling on facts, no matter how mistaken. They will readily overturn a lower judge's ruling on law, but virtually never on fact. Once judge Greer made his poor rulings on what the facts in the case are, the Schindlers were really left with applying to Greer again and hoping to persuade him to change his mind, which is an uphill battle to say the least.

The following account by Fr. Ron Johansen, the Catholic clergyman who has been closely associated with the Schindlers and has detailed knowledge from an insider's perspective, gives this account of their dealings with Judge Greer, and the falsehoods that have been trumpeted by the national news media (such as that Terri's condition was precipitated by bulimia):

Quote:

---

Michael Schiavo went into some detail on Larry King describing the circumstances of the injury which caused Terri to be in her present state. Michael claimed that he woke up in the middle of the night, then heard a loud thud. He went out into the hall, he said, and saw Terri lying in the hallway. She was, he said, unconscious. Michael then stated that he called Terri's brother Bobby, who lived in the same apartment complex as Terri and Michael. He then said that Bobby told him to call 911 and that he would come over. Michael claimed that he was holding Terri in his arms when Bobby arrived. The paramedics arrived a short time later and began to try to revive her. I asked the Schindlers how his account meshed with what they knew happened at the time.

.

Bob Schindler replied "that isn't what happened at all. What happened was that Michael called us first, and I answered the phone. He told me that Terri had collapsed and was unconscious. I told him to call 911. Then I called Bobby and told him to get over there. I said 'something's going on over there, get over there right now.'" Bob also said that Michael's claim that he was holding Terri in his arms was untrue. "When Bobby arrived at their place," Bob explained, "he found Terri lying face down in the hallway, with her feet over the threshold of the doorway, as though she had been coming out of the bedroom. Her hands were clutched around her throat, and her breathing was gurgling. Michael was sitting on the couch in the living room; he was a total basket case."

.

Michael also said on "Larry King Live" that Terri was bulimic prior to that night, and that her bulimia was possibly the cause of the potassium imbalance which was discovered when she was in the hospital. Bob & Mary also find this assertion incredible. Bob's reaction was "Poppycock!" Terri, they said, was quite healthy and had a healthy appetite prior to her injury. None of her friends or family ever saw any signs of any eating disorder, and there was no medical evidence of it found in her examinations.

.

This "potassium imbalance" is frequently touted as the explanation of what caused Terri's collapse. But it is an explanation that explains nothing. Indeed, doctors for the Schindlers testified in court, and reiterated at their news conference last Friday (October 24, 2003) that the potassium imbalance was only detected after she was brought to the hospital. This is after the paramedics had been working on her to revive her. Part of such treatment is the injection of various drugs and electrolytes to try to stimulate the heart. These injections were very likely the cause of the potassium imbalance. The potassium imbalance was an effect of her collapse and subsequent treatment, and not the cause of anything.

.

Terri's heart stopped for several minutes that night, and that stoppage caused the brain damage that led to her current condition. It is frequently asserted in press accounts that Terri had a "heart attack." This too is false. There was no heart attack, and again, doctors have testified to that effect. A heart attack causes the release of certain enzymes into the bloodstream. These enzymes are readily discovered in tests and are used as the "markers" of a heart attack. No such enzymes were found in Terri's bloodstream, nor any other evidence of a heart attack. Terri's heart was and is quite healthy: there was no heart attack.

.

So what happened to cause Terri to lose consciousness? No one is sure, because there was never a proper investigation. The Schindlers do not accept Michael's version of what happened to Terri. Also, Bob related, "it's in the medical record that when Terri was brought into the hospital she had bruises around her neck." Doctors for the Schindlers have testified that those bruises were consistent with manual strangulation. Furthermore, skull x-rays and head CT scans done about a year after her injury indicated fractures to the occipital region which have never been explained. These fractures are consistent with trauma to the head.

.

The theory that Terri was strangled gains plausibility when one considers that friends and siblings of Terri's testified that they were aware that Michael had abused Terri prior to the night of her injury. Bob & Mary were not aware of this themselves before Terri's injury. "I found out afterwards," Bob said, "that they [Terri's friends and brother] had been keeping that from me." But, Bob, explained, Terri's best friend, Jackie Rhoades, testified at the 1996 guardianship hearing that she knew Terri was being abused, that she frequently saw her with bruises on her arms and legs, and that Terri was afraid of Michael. Jackie further stated that Terri intended to divorce Michael, and that she and Terri were making plans to do that. Terri's brother Bobby also testified to his knowledge of Terri's abuse, and corroborated much of Jackie's testimony.

.

These allegations and the evidence behind them have been brought to court in the Schindlers' suits to have Michael removed as guardian, but have never been properly investigated. Judge Greer dismissed these allegations with a wave of his judicial wand, saying that "it would be interesting to know what happened," but that it was "irrelevant to this case." Judge Greer disregarded Jackie's and Bobby's testimony, saying that it was hearsay. That ruling will prove to be interesting in light of the judge's ruling regarding other secondhand testimony in this case.

.

On the Larry King Show, Michael also contended that he was not after Terri's settlement money. As evidence of this he said that he had offered three times to give that money to charity. Bob and Mary Schindler confirm that he did make such an offer, but only once. During the first effort to remove Terri's feeding tube, in 1998, the Schindlers received a letter from Michael's lawyer George Felos containing the offer. But that offer, they explained, was contingent on their agreement to remove Terri's feeding tube. "He said he'd give the money away if I agreed to kill my daughter," Bob explained. He added that the letter stipulated that the offer to give the money away was off the table after 10 days.

.

Why, I asked, did Michael make such an odd proposal? "Well, that's interesting," Bob answered. "See, the court appointed a guardian ad litem to determine Michael's fitness as guardian. His name was Richard Pearse. Pearse said that Michael had a conflict of interest as guardian because he stood to inherit the money in Terri's fund if Terri died. Pearse said that Michael couldn't be impartial in his decisions." "So," Bob continued, "that offer and the letter was Felos' attempt to remove the appearance of conflict."

.

Mr. Pearse, in his role as guardian ad litem, also found that Michael's testimony regarding Terri's purported wish not to live if she required artificial support was "not credible." So what happened to the perspicacious Mr. Pearse, as a result of his observing Michael's obvious conflict of interest and the flimsiness of his story regarding Terri's wishes? He was removed as guardian ad litem by Judge Greer, at Felos' request.

.

Michael has repeatedly asserted that he so doggedly pursues Terri's death because he is trying to "honor her wishes", because he loves her. Michael asserts that he heard Terri voice this wish while watching a television show that involved a person in a vegetative state. I asked Bob & Mary about this "wish" of Terri's. "She never said anything like that", Mary answered. "Not to any of us." When was the first time you ever heard about this wish, I asked. "It was in 1998," Bob replied, "during the first trial" [to remove Terri's feeding tube]. "We never heard anything about that before." The reader will recall that Michael had an opportunity to explain that "wish" during the 1993 court proceedings, but for some reason did not.

.

But, I asked, Michael said that his story has been corroborated. And some defenders of Michael emphasize that the court found his testimony "clear and convincing". What about that? "What the court found so convincing," Bob replied, "was that Michael brought out his brother and sister-in-law, and they corroborated him. And Felos brought them out at the last minute, shortly before the trial. They weren't on the original witness list. Felos blindsided us."

.

I was, frankly, astonished. I'm no lawyer, but I know enough to find that somewhat irregular. Didn't your lawyer object? I asked. "Oh, yeah, Bob said. "She objected all over the place. They weren't on the witness list, and they were never deposed before the trial, but the judge allowed them in."

.

You'll recall that Judge Greer disallowed the testimony of Jackie Rhoades and Bobby Schindler regarding Terri's abuse, because it was hearsay. But Michael's testimony, and that of his never-deposed brother and sister-in-law, were allowed in, and found "clear and convincing". It would seem that in Judge Greer's courtroom, some kinds of hearsay are more convincing than others.

---

The above is only an excerpt from Part 2 of Fr. Johansen's report. This and much more can be read at the following link, which is Fr. Johansen's own website:

http://thrownback.blogspot.com/2003_10_26_thrownback_archive.html

It could well be that Judge Greer committed the enormous, egregious error of making Terri's attempted killer her legal guardian.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Actually, Neil, judges seldom if ever overturn a lower judge's ruling on facts, no matter how mistaken. They will readily overturn a lower judge's ruling on law, but virtually never on fact.

---

Hehehehehe.....If you believe that an appellate judge dont look for problems and incomplete facts and procedures that are not followed according to the law, then you just plain don't know the justice system...

Quote:

---

Once judge Greer made his poor rulings on what the facts in the case are, the Schindlers were really left with applying to Greer again and hoping to persuade him to change his mind, which is an uphill battle to say the least.

---

Here is an abstract on the current court case, Ron. Read it and weep....

[:"blue"] Schiavo Thoughts: Myths, Inexcusable Myths

For years now, the most popular myth regarding the Schiavo case was that Michael Schiavo decided what should happen to Terri, and the court system simply enforced his right to make that decision. If you're reading this post, you hopefully know that nothing of the sort happened. (Otherwise, please review this site's Terri Schiavo Information Page, particularly the Q&A section.)

Over time, most of the major media figured out that a trial was actually held between Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers. Most. Not all.

Yet even as much of the country learned that a trial had been held and the judge found the evidence clear and convincing that Terri wished not to receive life-prolonging medical care in this sort of situation, another myth began to emerge. And this one never went away. It did not overtake everyone, but host after host, national news channel after national news channel, editorial board after editorial board -- an astounding number of media figures -- seized on, criticized, lamented, praised, or otherwise discussed something that never, ever happened:

That the clear and convincing evidence of Terri's wishes was just Michael Schiavo's word.

There was talk of how a spouse could be expected to know these things, but then how this spouse could not be trusted. There was talk of how spouses should be believed, but then how "hearsay" testimony from someone with something to gain should be ignored. There was talk of, well, lots of talk. About Michael.

How is it possible that none of these people -- or at least the folks who feed them information -- ever read what the trial judge actually said about the evidence he relied on?

Look back at Judge Greer's February 2000 order. He explained that the clear and convincing evidence did not come from Michael's testimony alone. In fact, the judge acknowledged, without necessarily accepting, a guardian ad litem's position that Michael's testimony could not amount to clear and convincing evidence.

Looking at the trial judge's ruling, he did rely on Michael's testimony, but he also placed tremendous weight on Michael's brother and sister-in-law, Scott Schiavo and Joan Schiavo. The trial judge found their testimony and that of one of the Schindlers' witnesses to be so significant that he had their trial testimony transcribed after the trial so he could review it again. The trial judge explained:

As with the witness called by the Respondents [the Schindlers], the court had the testimony of the brother and sister-in-law transcribed so that the court would not be hamstrung by relying on its notes. The court has reviewed the testimony of Scott Schiavo and Joan Schiavo and finds nothing contained therein to be unreliable. The court notes that neither of these witnesses appeared to have shaded his or her testimony or even attempt to exclude unfavorable comments or points regarding those discussions. They were not impeached on cross-examination. Argument is made as to why they waited so long to step forward but their explanations are worthy of belief.

The court also pointed to an expert witness who testified that the oral statements reported by Scott and Joan were consistent with statements of a person Terri's age:

The testimony of Ms. Beverly Tyler, Executive Director of Georgia Health Discoveries, clearly establishes that the expressions made by Terri Schiavo to these witnesses are those type of expressions made in those types of situations as would be expected by people in this country in that age group at that time. They (statements) reflect underlying values of independence, quality of life, not to be a burden and so forth. "Hooked to a machine" means they do not want life artificially extended when there is not hope of improvement.

Later in the decision, the court explained that Terri made different types of statements during her life, including statements where she spoke of what she would want for other people, and statements where she spoke of what she would want for herself. The court said:

There are some comments or statement made by Terri Schiavo which the court does not feel are germane to this decision. The court does not feel that statements made by her at the age of 11 or 12 years truly reflect upon her intention regarding the situation at hand. Additionally, the court does not feel that her statements directed toward others and situations involving others would have the same weight as comments or statements regarding herself if personally placed in those same situations. Into the former category the court places statements regarding Karen Ann Quinlan and the infant child of the friend of Joan Schiavo. The court finds that those statements are more reflective of what Terri Schiavo would do in a similar situation for someone else.

Finally, Judge Greer's order discussed the testimony on which he ultimately relied. He said:

The court does find that Terri Schiavo did make statements which are creditable and reliable with regard to her intention given the situation at hand. Initially, there is no question that Terri Schiavo does not pose a burden financially to anyone and this would appear to be a safe assumption for the foreseeable future. However, the court notes that the term "burden" is not restricted solely to dollars and cents since one can also be a burden to others emotionally and physically. Statements which Terri Schiavo made which do support the relief sought by her surrogate (Petitioner/Guardian) include statements to him prompted by her grandmother being in intensive care that if she was ever a burden she would not want to live like that. Additionally, statements made to Michael Schiavo which were prompted by something on television regarding people on life support that she would not want life like that also reflect her intention in this particular situation. Also the statements she made in the presence of Scott Schiavo at the funeral luncheon for his grandmother that "if I ever go like that just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine" and to Joan Schiavo following a television movie in which a man following an accident was in a coma to the effect that she wanted it stated in her will that she would want the tubes and everything taken out if that happened to her are likewise reflective of this intent. The court specifically finds that these statements are Terri Schiavo's oral declarations concerning her intention as to what she would want done under the present circumstances and the testimony regarding such oral declarations is reliable, is creditable and rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence to this court.

(emphasis added).

These findings show that Michael's testimony was not the clear and convincing evidence the court relied upon -- Michael's testimony was only part of that evidence. Two other witnesses who were not impeached gave what the court found to be specific, reliable, and creditable statements about her wishes. One of them was, as I understand it, Terri's best friend in the years before her collapse.

It is unfortunate, to say the least, that so many people -- particularly media figures -- who have publicly doubted the result of the trial do not appear even to have been aware of these other witnesses' testimony, let alone viewed it live or even reviewed it in transcripts.

I'll repeat now what I've said before regarding my own views. I did not attend the trial, and I do not know whether the trial judge reached the decision that Terri herself would have made. I hope he did, but I'm not willing to second-guess the result either way. We have trials to make decisions, and whether the factfinder is a judge or jury, the result is reached based on the evidence presented there.

I'll offer one final thought in this area. I remain befuddled that while hundreds of documents and other items concerning Terri and Michael have been replicated time and again across the Internet, prompting people around the world to second-guess the trial's result, the transcripts of the trial itself are not among the items in circulation. How can that be? Surely the parties have copies of the trial transcript. Shouldn't it be the one thing everyone should want to see before attempting to cast judgment on the propriety of the trial's result? [/]

In other words, "Frair Tuck" post is nothing more than out and out lies to boltster his catholic point of view that you need to save an individual at any cost. Which as you know, is what causes insurance companys and goverments to go broke.

Let's not go over this as it is nothing more than emotional drivel caused by tabloid press whose primary interest is to sell papers and get noticed playing upon the emotions of a caring public.

[Ron Lambert]

Neil, obviously you are willing to discredit the sources you should credit, and credit the sources that you should discredit, solely on the basis of the position you have already taken and closed your mind about. Judge Greer's determination of facts was clearly mistaken and the Schindlers were not given a fair hearing. And despite what you say, once Judge Greer made his determination of facts, there was virtually no chance any higher judge would overturn any of those determinations. I believe I do know what I am talking about.

You need more than arrogant assertions to make your case. And you need more than anti-Catholic bigotry to discredit Fr. Johansen. He was closely acquainted with the principals in the case, and can knowledgeably report what was done and said. I would be more inclined to believe him as a man of honor and truthfulness than some judge who was blatantly unfair and inconsistent in deciding whose testimony he would even hear.

Let's see if the report from the autopsy, when it is published, confirms the things Fr. Johansen says.

By the way, Neil, you failed to provide a link to the source of your quotation. Whoever wrote it admitted not to have first-hand knowledge. It's just another opinion piece and provides no facts. Its only "documentation" is quoting judge Greer.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Neil, obviously you are willing to discredit the sources you should credit, and credit the sources that you should discredit, solely on the basis of the position you have already taken and closed your mind about. Judge Greer's determination of facts was clearly mistaken and the Schindlers were not given a fair hearing.

---

Here is where you make your first mistake. You assume that the judge is out for blood and took only Micheal word as the sole source of Terri's desires. This is a myth, a fabrications, a lie. It is also the wrong place to start in processing the facts.

I have looked at the court records. They express doubt about Michael's motives. They searched for other corroborating witness for and against Michael and Schindlers. The weight of evidence sided with Michael. But even then, if the court has misgivings, it is to rule/err on the side of life. But the weight of evidence showed "clear and convincing" evidence that Terri would not have wanted to live in the way she did for 15 years. The court was forced to rule the way it did. That is why every state appellate court, every federal appellate court rule in favor of Terri's choice/Micheal position.

As for Friar Johansen, a 2nd year nursing student can refute his 'medical knowledge'. If anyone deserves the term "wacko", here is one. By 'wacko', I mean a person who uses an erroneous suppositions of medical knowledge to decieve and/or support his true beliefs.

Quote:

---

By the way, Neil, you failed to provide a link to the source of your quotation. Whoever wrote it admitted not to have first-hand knowledge. It's just another opinion piece and provides no facts. Its only "documentation" is quoting judge Greer.

---

You are correct. My source is a person who deal with the legal issues every day and understands them better than I do. He has written a legal blog and has access to the court records. His reasoning is very simple and profound. He has been accused of being on both sides of the issue and is in truely attempting to be as neutral as posible. Here is your link

[Ron Lambert]

Thanks for providing the link. But you still only believe testimony when it agrees with what you have already decided, and you try to dismiss the informed testimony of Fr. Johansen by ridiculing him and disparaging him for absolutely no reason other than your own prejudice.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

But you still only believe testimony when it agrees with what you have already decided, and you try to dismiss the informed testimony of Fr. Johansen by ridiculing him and disparaging him for absolutely no reason other than your own prejudice.

---

Why should I trust him, Ron? BY HIS OWN WORDS, he has shown that he can not be trusted with medical knowledge because it is faulty. He says it is NOT possible for a heart attack to occur based upon the electrolyte imbalance.

Quote:

---

Terri's heart stopped for several minutes that night, and that stoppage caused the brain damage that led to her current condition. It is frequently asserted in press accounts that Terri had a "heart attack." This too is false. There was no heart attack, and again, doctors have testified to that effect. A heart attack causes the release of certain enzymes into the bloodstream. These enzymes are readily discovered in tests and are used as the "markers" of a heart attack. No such enzymes were found in Terri's bloodstream, nor any other evidence of a heart attack. Terri's heart was and is quite healthy: there was no heart attack.

---

This is totally bogus. There were test done and they were admitted to the civil suit in court on behalf of Terry, buy michael. If the doctors were any thing except dumb, dontcha think they would have persued this line of thought to show that terri didn't die of a heart attack, but rather from strangluation???? Come on, Ron! Give the doctors from the civil suit some credit for being greedy at least.

A 2nd year nursing student can show that it IS possible. Drs at the court beg to differ with him. OUR Drs here on C/A have said that it IS possible. My limited knowledge of the pumonary system says that it is possible.

Do you know this man personally, Ron? I don't. All I know is that he is a pastor of the catholic faith, who tenets evidence a supporting of life at any cost. [Which in the medical field is unreasonable.]

Whether you like it or not, Ron...I have good reason for doubting the man. And I am NOT being unreasonable here...

[Rosie]

Quote:

---

Congress did something that many judges think shouldn't be done. Congress told the judiciary to forget about earlier rulings and start from a clean slate. Appeals courts don't do that. They always take into account how earlier courts have ruled. That is why many of the judges were so upset by the action taken by Congress and the President. They don't want the Congress (i.e. the people) telling them how to do thier job.

Well, guess what? The judge that wrote the minority opinion got it right. Congress does have the power to tell a court to ignore ealier rulings and to start with a clean slate. Far from being outside of the will of the founding fathers, many of the founders did not want a powerful judiciary. The founders wanted the people to have power - not a small, select group of people dressed in black.

---

Shane, Did you catch James Dobson tonight? Wow-this guy is on a roll concerning the men in black. I have to give Dobson credit, he is not afraid to stand for what he believes in.

Check it out:

http://www.focusaction.org/articles/A0000066.cfm

[Jeannieb43]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

. The founders wanted the people to have power - not a small, select group of people dressed in black.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Shane, Did you catch James Dobson tonight? Wow-this guy is on a roll concerning the men in black. I have to give Dobson credit, he is not afraid to stand for what he believes in.

Check it out:

http://www.focusaction.org/articles/A0000066.cfm

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

The way I've always learned it, Shane and Dobson are both wrong. The Founding Fathers wanted a balance of power -- all three, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial -- are to balance each other.

And thus far in our country's history, that's been the way it's always worked.

[Ron Lambert]

If you read the Constitution, originally the Supreme Court was to serve in an advisory role only, and only when asked by Congress or the President to give advice on the constitutionality of a proposed bill. The great accummulation of power by the courts has come as a result of ambitious judges getting away with more and more intrusion upon the authority of the Executive and Legislative branches.

It does not appear to me that the Founding Fathers intended for the Judiciary to be equal to the Legislative and Executive Branches. Those two were to be equal to each other, while the Judiciary was only an advisor or referee in disputes between the two branches.

That said, I have a sneaking suspicion that when the attempt is made to persecute Sabbath-keepers, it may well be the Judiciary that hinders this effort to enforce Sunday Laws and their derrivatives against Sabbath-keepers. So while I decry the obvious departure from the original plan of the Constitution, and the way the Judiciary has grabbed for power it was not originally intended to have, I also have to wonder if perhaps the Lord may have deliberately allowed things to develop in this way, for the benefit of Sabbath-keepers during the Time of Trouble.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

If you read the Constitution, originally the Supreme Court was to serve in an advisory role only, and only when asked by Congress or the President to give advice on the constitutionality of a proposed bill.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Actually the Constitution does not specify what the role of the Court was to be. That, perhaps, was the biggest error of the founders. The Court gave itself the role of judicial review. Many of the founders, like Thomas Jefferson, disagreed completely with the ruling of Mulbery v. Madison. Jefferson believed that Congress should decide if a law is constitutional or not and did not agree that the Court should play a role in that.

I have not heard what Dr. Dobson has to say about the issue but many are seeing judicial activism for what it is. I do not agree with Jefferson and the other founders that believed Congress did not need a check. I think the Courts having the power of judicial review is good but they have went beyond that to making law and disregarding the will of the people.

[Planey]

Shane, how do you decide what is "the will of the people"?

How many people need to be consulted before you can say "This is the will of the people"? Is it the number of people? The loudness of the people concerned? The influence of the said people? The religious viewpoint of the people? What?

Graeme