i just wanted to know what the board thought of this. since we're going to hear a lot about this over the coming days, dont feel obligated to post anything. just cast a vote.

what is the point of keeping a vegetable alive?
It's been 15 years already. Let the man have some peace in his life. The family needs to move on with their lives.

passing a law to directly affect only one person - sounds unconstitutional to me.

i like your use of the word "allowed" rather than "compelled".

I know from experience what it's like to have someone on life support and have to make that decision...My dad was in a similar state for close to 2 weeks(I could only imagine 15 years) before I made the decision to pull the plug..My mom, Aunt etc. were unsure (or should I say selfish) and were holding out hope...But after talking to the Doctors, I knew he would never recover...From talking to my dad when he was able, he made it very clear to me over the years that if anything ever happened, and that decision were to present itself, pull the plug. He told me when I can't wipe my own ass anymore, it's time to go...I never regretted the decision and I know in my heart that's what he would have wanted....

Sorry for the rant...The recent headlines just brought back some memories....

i don't mean to sound dumb, but can anybody give me a run-down on why this should be a state court determined case rather than a federal court case? or vice versa?

i think because it has been appealed so many times by her family

Got this via atrios:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_03_20_digbysblog_archive.html#111134934659869241

By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country.

Those of us who read liberal blogs also understand that that the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo's care thus far.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are aware that the bankruptcy bill will make it even more difficult for families who suffer a catastrophic illness like Terry Schiavo's because they will not be able to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh start when the gargantuan medical bills become overwhelming.

And those of us who read liberal blogs also know that this grandstanding by the congress is a purely political move designed to appease the religious right and that the legal maneuverings being employed would be anathema to any true small government conservative.

Those who don't read liberal blogs, on the other hand, are seeing a spectacle on television in which the news anchors repeatedly say that the congress is "stepping in to save Terry Schiavo" mimicking the unctuous words of Tom Delay as they grovel and leer at the family and nod sympathetically at the sanctimonious phonies who are using this issue for their political gain.

jurisdictional requirements - to sue in federal court, that court must have personal jurisdiction over the parties as well as subject matter jurisdiction. When you have people from FL suing people in FL it will generally be a state court case.

so would this qualify as a subject matter jurisdiction?

to get this case to federal court, the Federal District Court in FL would have to have both subject matter jurisdiction over the issues in the case and personal jurisdiction over the parties - they probably would not have either (without this bill that Congress passed).

Arguably the federal court would have subject matter jurisdiction if the case legitimately implicated a constitutional or federal law issue.

true. The pj is the real problem with all parties from FL. I am sure there are federal issues in the case

From my Civ Pro notes: Today, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 authorizes juris. over “cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” – Courts say this does not extend the juris. to the federal district courts to the full extent possible under the broad language of Osborn. The cases consistently hold that § 1331 means the federal district courts do not get juris. over cases that involve federal law unless the federal issue is necessary to the proof of the plaintiff’s claim.

This case would probably meet this test. ugh. back to civ pro.

heh... law dorks.

Civ Pro was last semester, but I'm pretty sure you just need 1331 OR 1332 jurisdiction - not both - to bring suit in federal court.

only need one to get subject matter jurisdiction. but court also needs personal jurisdiction (minimum contacts, all that)

ok, so if the federal court decides its a fderal court issue, then that would lend way to a national issue and set precedent for all assisted suicide cases? like, for example, oregon is the only state where assisted suicide is explicitly lawful (though, undoubtedly, assisted suicide occurs elsewhere in the country, quietly). if the federal court makes a decision that its unlawful for assisted suicide to occur, then oregon has to conform to that ruling? what's florida's stance? i'm confused by the media at the moment.

also, would this case even have been brought to this pitch if she had written it down or had told her parents? are the parents arguing that their daughter would want to be kept alive or are they arguing that she should be kept alive, but not because of their daughters' wishes?

The only real way for OR's law to get thrown out would be for the Supreme Court to strike it, or other very similar legislation, down. OR wouldn't be bound by the decisions of another circuit although it would serve precedential value for those who would challenge OR's law in this circuit, the 9th circuit, or in the Supreme Court.

I don't think this would necessarily affect assisted suicide, since the circumstances would be decidedly different - just because they say that absent a living will feeding tubes may not be removed does not mean they would have to rule on whether you can make that decision when you're alive - that would be an unusually broad opinion.

Apparently the case is only going to federal court because Congress quickly passed a bill to allow it - Federal courts can hear any cases Congress authorizes them to... the subject matter/personal jurisdiction stuff is just part of the current congressional grant of power.

there are limits on what they can grant - at least theoretically. The whole "arising under" language in the Constitution (Article 3, Section 2) defines the outer limit of subject matter jurisdiction for the Federal Courts plus the extremely weak due process limitations (5th amendment) that have been interpreted as a limt on personal jurisdiction (basically Congress has alllowed fed cts to exercise nationwide pj)

Her and everyone who thinks she should live should die.