3/24/2005

Supreme Court refuses to hear case...

This is certainly not a good sign and definitely not what we were hoping for. It looks like the last real hope is the DCF ruling that we should have a ruling on within the next hour and change. The judge hearing the petition has set a deadline of 12pm EST for his decision. Let's keep praying that this is favorable and governor Bush can move her in to custody.

What I find interesting is the last line about this being a "trial be legislature" because it is sharply different then one Florida state senators remark which were basically encouraging legislation from the bench.

Story Here

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to order Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted, rejecting a desperate appeal by her parents to keep their severely brain-damaged daughter alive.

The decision, announced in a terse one-page order, marked the end of a dramatic and disheartening four-day dash through the federal court system by Bob and Mary Schindler.

Justices did not explain their decision, which was at least the fifth time they have declined to get involved in the Schiavo case.

The feeding tube that has been keeping Schiavo alive at a hospice in Pinellas Park, Fla., was removed last Friday. Doctors at the time said that unless it is reinserted she will die in a week or two.

The high court's decision was the latest in a string of losses in state and federal courts for the Schindlers, who say their 41-year-old daughter faces an unjust and imminent death based on a decision by her husband to halt nourishment without proof of her consent.

The Schindlers' emergency high court filing also argued that Congress intended for Schiavo's tube to be reinserted, at least temporarily, when it passed an extraordinary bill last weekend giving federal courts authority to fully review her case.

In his response, Michael Schiavo urged justices not to intervene because his wife's case already has been endlessly litigated and at each turn courts have sided with him.

His filing also argued that Congress violated the Constitution when it passed the bill because the action was improperly intended to overturn state court rulings on the matter.

"That is not an exercise of legislative power, but trial by legislature," the filing said.

No comments: