From the ruling by t…
From the ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals here in Atlanta on the Terry Schiavo case:

In the end, and no matter how much we wish Mrs. Schiavo had never suffered such a horrible accident, we are a nation of laws, and if we are to continue to be so, the pre-existing and well-established federal law governing injunctions as well as Pub. L. No. 109-3 must be applied to her case. While the position of our dissenting colleague has emotional appeal, we as judges must decide this case on the law.

I heartily agree that the judges’ actions must be governed by laws, not emotion. Let’s hear the emotional dissent now.

I strongly dissent from the majority’s decision to deny the request for an injunction pursuant to the All Writs Act and the request for a preliminary injunction. First, Plaintiffs have demonstrated their entitlement to a preliminary injunction. Second, the denial of Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction frustrates Congress’s intent, which is to maintain the status quo by keeping Theresa Schiavo alive until the federal courts have a new and adequate opportunity to consider the constitutional issues raised by Plaintiffs. The entire purpose for the statute was to give the federal courts an opportunity to consider the merits of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims with a fresh set of eyes. Denial of Plaintiffs’ petition cuts sharply against that intent, which is evident to me from the language of the statute, as well as the swift and unprecedented manner of its enactment. Theresa Schiavo’s death, which is imminent, effectively ends the litigation without a fair opportunity to fully consider the merits of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims.

We should, at minimum, grant Plaintiffs’ All Writs Petition for emergency injunctive relief. First, I note that there is no precedent that prohibits our granting of this petition. Second, mindful of equitable principles, the extraordinary circumstances presented by this appeal require that we grant the petition to preserve federal jurisdiction and permit the opportunity to give Plaintiffs’ claims the full and meaningful review they deserve.

Other than the word “strongly”, what here is emotional? Noting that time is of the essence isn’t emotional, it’s practical. The judge here believe the Schiavos have met the legal requirements for a preliminary injunction, and he believes that the obvious intent of the congressional action is being frustrated for no good legal reason.

Yet he’s called emotional. This is quite a microcosm of the Schiavo debate.

(The full decision is in PDF form here.)

Filed under: Uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!