PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. I don’t know about judicial activism, or congressional activism either, for that matter. What bothers me about the Schiavo case is that in this enlightened, civilized country, our laws condemned an innocent woman to a drawn out and inhumane death that we don’t allow the judicial system to impose on convicted murderers.

    Comment by caltechgirl — Thursday, March 31, 2005 @ 4:17 pm

  2. Judicial Activism
    Dr. Steven Taylor, of Poliblog (a site you should have on your list of links) braves his brethren on the right and takes on the misguided cries of “judicial activism” when it comes to the Schiavo case. While I can…

    Trackback by Rooftop Report — Thursday, March 31, 2005 @ 5:47 pm

  3. Didn’t the Florida Supreme Court strike down a law passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor that would have saved Terri?

    Comment by Lee P — Thursday, March 31, 2005 @ 7:45 pm

  4. You’re right. The law was applied accurately. The amount of procedural due process given the Schindlers, who never had a viable case anyway, was amazing. More than 30 considerations by various courts. The judges, particularly Greer and Birch, were thoughtful and patient.

    “At a minimum: at least argue what you want to argue, i.e, that life is paramount over all and forget this business about judicial tyranny.”

    Couldn’t have said it better. The Right to Life advocates are dissembling. The only outcome that would please them would be to have their will substituted for Terri Schiavo’s. And mine. And yours. Despite their ludicrous demonization of Michael Schiavo, he was never really their target. An individual’s right to choose whether she wants life support after catastrophic injury or illness is. Absent letting that segment of the population usurp everyone’s right to decide, they will never be satisfied. The good news is that is not going to happen. As much of 82 percent of public supported the right of Ms. Schiavo to reject life support, according to polls.

    Comment by Mac Diva — Friday, April 1, 2005 @ 10:25 am

  5. The California Bar Journal, February, 1996 stated that U.S. District Court Judge Dickran Tevrizian proposed, promoted, and extrajudicially affirmed that California Rule of Court 989.3 is “consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act”, as applied to the California courts.

    Does Judge Tevrizian’s proposal, promotion, and extrajudicial affirmation of a state law subject to constitutional challenge in federal court mean that Judge Tevrizian is a “judicial activist,” subject to recusal under 28 U.S.C. 455?

    The U.S. Supreme Court was asked this question in Finney v. Nugent, cert petition No. 04-1653 filed on June 6. The legal case documents are posted on http://www.hmohardball.com. I am the petitioner, a former federal fraud investigator, who is totally disabled by polio and has been denied access to the California courts.

    Thank you.

    Jacquelyn Finney

    Comment by Jacquelyn Finney — Monday, June 20, 2005 @ 4:11 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.177 Powered by Wordpress