Quality Control at CBSNews.com
 

I read the whole thing. He did a nice job. My issue is that he did a nice job within the framework that he was given, and I think the wrong framework was chosen. He judged by adherence to The Process. I don't think he addressed my chosen framework of "what's the harm in letting her live."

And, while I agree with you that the murder/torture talk is misplaced, I think you're not giving the people who go through that enough credit. Ultimately, it's the circumstances of each individual case that we live by, and we judge our choices in that context. Anyone who has made it to that point knows that there's no torture or murder involved.

and history repeats itself......
 

What do you mean, "we," white man?

Question for litigators/appellate counsel
 

1) Chances are better?
2) Already have one judge, maybe you get more, to stand up for you before going to the Supremes.
3) Gives you a bit more time to craft a petition for cert.

I don't see too many justices getting into this one. Scalia and Thomas would probably be the most likely ones to have moral concerns with letting her die, but I can't imagine Scalia not teeing off on Congress for creating this massive exception to ordinary rules of federalism.

If I were guessing, I'd say Rehnquist and O'Connor would be most likely to do anything. None of the liberals are likely to want to play the game (maybe Stevens, but I doubt it).

and history repeats itself......
 

Ah, Grandstanding!
 

Do you think there should be a right to assisted suicide, or do you just disbelieve the evidence and finding that Terry Schiavo would have wanted to be taken off life support in these circumstances?

for Spanky
 

Gary Becker on the relationship between economic and political freedom discussed here.

habeas corpus, the sequel
 

Let me guess: you were there?

Quality Control at CBSNews.com
 

I did. What's your point?

habeas corpus, the sequel
 

I asked you to see if you wanted to see our Lord and Savior executed but you were just too busy. I think you said "I can't get excited every time some peasant Jew gets executed. Even if he is the Son of God and is dying for my sins". Maybe next time I say that you should check out an event because it might be an important historical event, you might give me the benefit of the doubt.

for Spanky
 

He stole all my ideas (or at least ideas I stole from somewhere else). Can I sue him or something?

Over at the Becker/Posner blog, Gary Becker assesses the state of thinking about the relationship between political and economic freedoms:


Since both economic and political freedoms are highly valued, it is essential to understand how they interact as nations evolve. The history of different countries during the past century strongly indicates that economic freedoms over time typically push societies toward political freedoms. To take a few examples, South Korea, Taiwan, and Chile all started their economic development under military regimes. Korea and Taiwan both began freeing their economies around 1960 after centralized direction of their economies failed to produce economic growth. Chile began opening its economy under General Pinochet in 1981, also after his centralized approach to the Chilean economy failed. Within two decades, all three nations had achieved, or were moving rapidly toward, political democracies, with vibrant competition for elections among competing parties, and a mainly free press.

The path from political to economic freedom, by contrast, is slower and more uncertain. It took India over four decades to begin to loosen its extensive controls over private companies, labor markets, start-ups, imports from abroad, and numerous other activities. It still has a long way to go. Mexico has had a free press and considerable political freedom for a century or so, but economic freedoms did not begin to evolve until the latter part of the 1980’s. Israel has fierce competition among political parties, but continues to have an overly controlled economy.

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

One wonders what went wrong in the GOP judge reeducation workshop. Senator Frothy Mixture of Fecal Matter and Lube is gonna be pissssssed.

Whoa
I'm guessing that Justice Kennedy will be hearing shortly from the Schindler family.

for Spanky
 

He has a Nobel Prize, so he's pretty much authorized to steal stuff. At least I think that's the way it works.

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

Does anyone know if the Full Faith & Credit Clause obliges the federal government to respect state judgments?

Quality Control at CBSNews.com
 

Your points are legitimate -- but your statements about the SOM hearsay exception under FRE 803 [or the state equivalent] are incorrect. You also seem to miss the point that even a written living will is no more than hearsay evidence of then-existing state of mind. [Though it is much more reliable hearsay because it is written, notarized and signed.]

In the absence of evidence that one has changed one's views -- by either revoking a living will or, in the absence of a document, making contradictory verbal statements at a later date -- the most recent evidence of state of mind is properly presumed to hold. I think that is the right result.

I'm not in favor of a system where one must be sustained forever (unless everyone quietly agrees to secretly pull the plug). We had that already. I also think that, while a written directive is to be strongly encouraged -- it should not necessarily be required. Thus, we're stuck with messy fact-finding situations.

S_A_M

Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
 

Public policy exception?