I realize that her husband is a shit who pretty much took himself out of the picture years ago. Yet, I keep seeing this stuff about him refusing money. If he stood to gain something, then I could understand why he wants her dead and stays involved. If he's not getting any money or anything out of it, then why is he even concerning himself with it? They say he "moved on". It doesn't look like it to me. Why is he still around? Sadism? Masochism, maybe? What are HIS motives for even peripherally staying involved when he's so clearly not even in this woman's orbit anymore?

It's called money. He stands to gain quite a bit if Terri dies. Remember the money he got for her upkeep? What is left upon her death is his.

257 by drmiler Friday, March 25, 2005 #250 by drmiler Friday, March 25, 2005 Starving children in third world countries, including USA, and those who are in the final episode of life, due to illness and/or injury, are not equatable. I would never advocate starving healthy people. So from what your say is that you "could" advocate it for someone who is *not* healthy? I am sure if dabe had her way because of my illness {hep C} she would have no problem murdering me, because I fall in the unhealthy catagory. Or me since I have MS. so does my best friend in REAL life, she blogs here as gimpyone, she is a treasure to me from GOD doc, I pray for your illness to leave! Get out! go away!

Thank you for your prayers my friend. I pray everyday for it to leave. It just don't wanna listen to me. If "gimpyone" has MS then you know how hard it is for me to type this. The depression that comes with MS has a tendancy to affect my mood too. Which is why sometimes I'm such a HUGH asshole to people!

Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Friday, March 25, 2005" .... has anyone heard that there were witnesses to Terri saying that she would rather die? I just read that a few minutes ago."Anna Nicole Smith's husband expressed that he wanted her to have the share of his money she was seeking. That wasn't enough for the courts. How much less important should this kind of hearsay be when someone's life is on the line? Do we really want a legal environment where a "husband" can get a couple of people to nod and have his wife killed? You'll have people "put out of their misery" left and right...

is not this amazing? the judges are the ones running and ruining this country,, where is there checks and balances? who judges the judges?

Reply By: RightwingerPosted: Friday, March 25, 2005I realize that her husband is a shit who pretty much took himself out of the picture years ago.

and his "word" carries so much weight with the court, WHY??I just do not get it. maybe I never will.

"where is there checks and balances? who judges the judges?

For all intents and purposes? No one. "Approval" is their check and balance, but when a judge can sit there until he dies, once he is approved, the only check and balance he has is judges higher up the totem pole.

BUT, the one way we can respond to their INTERPRETATION of the law is MAKE NEW LAWS. Given how Liberals have responded to the bi-partisan efforts in Congress last week, apparently they think we shouldn't even have that balance.

Reply By: drmilerPosted: Friday, March 25, 2005

Thank you for your prayers my friend. I pray everyday for it to leave. It just don't wanna listen to me. If "gimpyone" has MS then you know how hard it is for me to type this. The depression that comes with MS has a tendancy to affect my mood too. Which is why sometimes I'm such a HUGH asshole to people!

anytime and all the time, my friend is raising 3 kids, 15, 13 and 9 and her husband is scum... grrrrrrrrrrr

You have never pointed that "asshole" at me, and thats all that counts in my book.

269 by BakerStreet Friday, March 25, 2005

For all intents and purposes? No one. "Approval" is their check and balance, but when a judge can sit there until he dies, once he is approved, the only check and balance he has is judges higher up the totem pole. BUT, the one way we can respond to their INTERPRETATION of the law is MAKE NEW LAWS. Given how Liberals have responded to the bi-partisan efforts in Congress last week, apparently they think we shouldn't even have that balance.

It's not the law, it's how liberal activist judges LEGISLATE from the bench and get away with it.

BUT, the one way we can respond to their INTERPRETATION of the law is MAKE NEW LAWS.

Exactly Bakerstreet.

I am in that process right not (not related to this piticular subject)

Moterateman, it is the law. If there is a spicific law pertaining to this subject, then it would be followed.

There is always a possibility that it can be fought later on (for example Row Vs Wade) but that is the process.

Reply By: joeKnowledgePosted: Friday, March 25, 2005BUT, the one way we can respond to their INTERPRETATION of the law is MAKE NEW LAWS. Exactly Bakerstreet.I am in that process right not (not related to this piticular subject)Moterateman, it is the law. If there is a spicific law pertaining to this subject, then it would be followed.There is always a possibility that it can be fought later on (for example Row Vs Wade) but that is the process.

I live in california and have seen 2 judges overturn newly voted bills that were law,

the first was to deny medical to illegal border jumping lawbreakers, passed by 65% in 1990? maybe 1991 and one judge over turned it. one.


The second one was just this month, One judge overturned the law that spelled out marriage is between one man and one woman and one judge legislating from the bench decided HE did not like it and overturned that one too.

the above 2 examples are what I mean. k?

Reply By: joeKnowledgePosted: Friday, March 25, 2005BUT, the one way we can respond to their INTERPRETATION of the law is MAKE NEW LAWS.

then the judges will still legislate from the bench and mis interpet with impunity.

For all intents and purposes? No one. "Approval" is their check and balance, but when a judge can sit there until he dies, once he is approved, the only check and balance he has is judges higher up the totem pole. BUT, the one way we can respond to their INTERPRETATION of the law is MAKE NEW LAWS. Given how Liberals have responded to the bi-partisan efforts in Congress last week, apparently they think we shouldn't even have that balance.

It is funny how some of these people demand that we obey the law of the least democratic branch of government, while doing what they can to go against the will of the legislative and executive branches, the two branches that are actually accountable to the people.

I never liked Andrew Jackson, but if there's one thing I wish we'd learn from him, it's that when courts start playing judge, jury, and executioner, we can simply go: "They've made their opinions. Now let them enforce it."

Reply By: Enigmatic JesterPosted: Friday, March 25, 2005For all intents and purposes? No one. "Approval" is their check and balance, but when a judge can sit there until he dies, once he is approved, the only check and balance he has is judges higher up the totem pole.BUT, the one way we can respond to their INTERPRETATION of the law is MAKE NEW LAWS. Given how Liberals have responded to the bi-partisan efforts in Congress last week, apparently they think we shouldn't even have that balance.It is funny how some of these people demand that we obey the law of the least democratic branch of government, while doing what they can to go against the will of the legislative and executive branches, the two branches that are actually accountable to the people.I never liked Andrew Jackson, but if there's one thing I wish we'd learn from him, it's that when courts start playing judge, jury, and executioner, we can simply go: "They've made their opinions. Now let them enforce it."

sadly the judges can enforce there will upon all of us.

In Reply #224 by im-moder-rant spluttered:

yeh right, you come in MY BLOG insult me, call me names, twist the facts, put words in my mouth {or fingers} and you want me to apoligize??

That's right: You should apologize for your own hypocritical & hate-filled words.

No fact twisting or word putting involved. I'll quote just one example...

In the first post of this thread, im-moder-rant spewed:

all you fathead liberals do america A FAVOR... starve slowly to death

Two wrongs don't make a right. You yourself said starvation is cruel & wrong. And yet you advocate it for millions of Americans.

So which is it? Apologize or admit that you are a hate-filled hypocrite?

In reply #236, im-moder-rant seethed:

ironic how the LIBERAL MIND WORKS ISN'T IT? blind to everything that they disagree with, so sure THEY know whats best for everyone.

Um, it's the big government GOP trying to disrupt, usurp & dictate private family decisions here, dude. End-of-life decisions belong to next of kin, not grandstanding politicians. Real conservatives understand that.

Tell us again how many liberals you want to starve, when in fact the position you oppose -- keeping BIG GOVT OUT of PRIVATE DECISIONS -- is a CONSERVATIVE point of view.

And no amount of your hate-filled hypocrisy will change that fact.

Ready to apologize yet?

Some judicial system which turns a deaf ear to emergencies. It seems black laws are more importance to them than life.
Its judicial killing.