Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - JonR0921

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12
31
News Discussion / Re: Terry Schiavo
« on: March 29, 2005, 04:22:16 PM »
I suppose Terri also receives disability pay.  Nice!

I know you probably didn't expect a response to this, but after working as an appellate paralegal for a firm that did nothing but social security disability (SSD) work, I feel like responding.

Terri has been like this since she was 25.  Most 25 year olds don't have enough lifetime earnings to qualify for SSD (and if they do, the amount they'd get is negligible).  Moreover, the initial application evaluators deny 97% of all claims, which leads to a hearing.  Of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decisions that I've read and appealed (well over 300 different judges), I can say with a fair degree of certainty that no judge would grant benefits in a case with as many discrepancies as this one has.

(Disclaimer: What I've just stated is my opinion based on work experience, and should not be taken for any more than that)

32
News Discussion / Re: Jerry Falwell
« on: March 29, 2005, 04:05:03 PM »
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050329/ap_on_re_us/falwell

Should I rethink Liberty Law?

Were you honestly considering it in the first place?  I can only hope your post was in jest  :)

It would be in horrible taste to jest about a man's life.

I should clarify.  I hope you were kidding about attending Liberty.

33
News Discussion / Re: Terry Schiavo
« on: March 29, 2005, 04:03:48 PM »

What would happen legally if someone (her parents or a protestor) did manage to break in and wet her lips with a sponge or piece of ice?  They'd be breaking the law obviously, but can you really see someone being led away in handcuffs for moistening the lips of a dying woman? 

Yes...as you conceded, that'd be breaking the law. And they'd be handcuffed like anyone else that breaks the law.  Seems simple to me.

34
News Discussion / Re: Terry Schiavo
« on: March 29, 2005, 03:58:09 PM »
On a cellular level, her body knows.  It's starting to go through the process of burning
whatever fat may exist.

But she's completely and totally unaware of it -- unaware of anything and everything, for that matter.

35
News Discussion / Re: Jerry Falwell
« on: March 29, 2005, 03:49:32 PM »
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050329/ap_on_re_us/falwell

Should I rethink Liberty Law?

Were you honestly considering it in the first place?  I can only hope your post was in jest  :)

36
News Discussion / Re: Terry Schiavo
« on: March 29, 2005, 03:47:49 PM »
Terri's not dead, people- there's a living, breathing body in that bed.  The new brain might be inactive or liquified, but the brain stem (the old brain) is still very much alive.

She's not dead until her heart stops on its own accord.

I think calling her "dead" is a great disgrace to life and against every biological tenet we hold true.  There's not a scientist in the world who wouldn't declare her body "alive".

I'll say it again- legally, the tube should be removed.  But don't delude yourself into thinking she died fifteen years ago.  She's starving to death right now.

I suppose you also think that a clump of cells in a woman's uterus is also alive. 

And you propose that biologically they are not?
She's not dead until her heart stops on its own accord.

If her heart stopped of its own accord, her parents would want her hooked up to other machines and we'd be right back at square one. They are determined to keep her body alive by any means.

I don't have a problem with pulling the plug on respirators- if there's no chance, let me go.  But starving her is inhumane.  Someone mentioned earlier that she can't ingest food on her own.  Where does this slippery slope end?  What if it goes from not being able to swallow to not being able to physically place the food in your mouth?  Is feeding a parapalegic considered "life support"?  You are basically ensuring their survival.  Likewise, a baby can't eat unless you help it.  Could mothers cut off "life support" and let their babies die?  I'm sure there are some lawyers that would argue the point.  If grandma breaks her hip and can't reach the top shelf for food, do we slowly let her die?

Terri's body wants fuel.  Right now, every cell in her body is screaming to survive, since it's the utmost instinct we have.  I consider withholding something somebody needs to live to be murder.

Pulling out the feeding tube is equivalent in my book to sucking all the oxygen out of the room.  Her stomach works, it just needs the raw material.

No, her parents want her body to have the raw material.  By the family's own admission, Terri is "past the point of no return."  She has no idea that she doesn't have raw material, nor does she have the capacity to want it.

37
News Discussion / Re: Terry Schiavo
« on: March 29, 2005, 03:44:05 PM »
Now the Schindler's have Jesse Jackson speaking on their behalf.  This is really getting to be ridiculous, and is certainly offensive.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Brain-Damaged-Woman.html

38
News Discussion / Re: Terry Schiavo
« on: March 29, 2005, 10:47:04 AM »
Interesting that you bring this up.  On "Hannity and Colmes" a few nights ago, Sean Hannity asked Bobby Schindler (Terri's brother) if the family's lawyers are considering murder charges against Michael Schiavo.  His response was the same response he'd given to all of their questions; something to the effect of "we're focusing on my sister now and I'm sure our lawyers will look into all of these things when the time comes."

Legally, I don't think murder charges can be brought, but I would expect Sean Hannity to ask such a question.

39
News Discussion / Re: Terry Schiavo
« on: March 29, 2005, 09:04:30 AM »
That whole due process thing is such a joke.  I can't believe these people have the gall to say such a thing when it's obvious that more people in our governments and court have given time to this, even when such time was not required of them.  It's laughable that the President and Congress got involved.

Just because you didn't get the outcome you wanted doesn't mean you were denied due process.


I agree...the federal government stuck their nose in where it didn't belong.  But since they did, I figured it'd be worth pointing out what may well be the funniest thing ever said on the House floor.  During that ridiculous 3-hour debate, Rep Barney Frank (D-MA), said "I'm not a doctor, I just play one on C-SPAN." I thought that was hysterical.

Of course, every republican House member with a medical degree then proceeded to diagnose Terri's condition, which I thought was ridiculous.

But you can always count on Barney Frank for a good laugh.

40
News Discussion / Re: Terry Schiavo
« on: March 29, 2005, 08:42:01 AM »
I sympathized with Terri's parents for awhile, but once they started lying to the press and not stopping their lawyers from doing the same (i.e. 'Terri's in pain' ot 'Terri's trying to communicate with us and we can tell'), I lost respect for them.  They come out of this looking selfish, and appearing to place their agenda first, and their concerns about their daughter second.

And if anyone in the Schindler family -- or their attorney's -- say one more time that Terri's been denied due process, I may just give up following the case.  This matter has gone before the President, the House, the Senate, the Florida legislature, a Florida state court, and every federal court (twice).  No one has bee given more due process than Terri Schiavo.

That said, I fully support Michael's position that he is carrying out his wife's wishes.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12