home

Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings

Judge James D. Wittemore of Tampa is bound to become the latest target of the right if he decides not to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. Given his background and history, I don't think they have a leg to stand on.

He is a former federal defender, former Circuit Court Judge for Hillsboro County and Clinton appointee to the federal bench. Like all federal judges, his appointment is for life. A review of his published opinions and news articles on his decisions do not show political partisanship, or even liberal tendencies. Here's a good size sampling, all sources are listed and available on Lexis.com.

  • In a high-profile case in Tampa, he ruled a "county can regulate nudity in private clubs to protect residents from an increase in crime and prostitution as well as the degradation of women." Sarasota Herald-Tribune, January 15, 2003.
  • He "denied an adult business owner's attempt to bar the State Attorney's Office from prosecuting him under a state racketeering law if he sets up shop in Polk County." Lakeland Ledger, February 5, 2003.
  • He refused to find Polk County's use of antiracketeering laws and high bail unconstitutional. Tampa Tribune, March 2, 2003.
  • He ruled that "Manatee County nudity ordinances do not infringe on exotic dancers' constitutional rights of expression." Sarasota Herald-Tribune, April 3, 2002 .
  • He "dismissed a lawsuit filed against the Polk school board by parents and students who said the mandate to wear uniforms violated their civil rights." Tampa Tribune, November 20, 2002,

  • He sent a former publicist for the National Baptist Convention USA back to prison for nine months for violating the terms of her probation. The reason: she had forged the signature of a church minister and made a false statement on a lease application for an apartment. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 29, 2002
  • In a religious investment scam case, he sentenced Greater Ministries Founder Gerald Payne to 27 years in prison and called him him a "wolf in sheep's clothing." St. Petersburg Times, August 13, 2001.
  • He upheld Florida's law prohibiting interstate shipment of wine from out of state to Florida consumers. The state had argued the law, which is a felony, is "justified because they address a "threat to the public health, safety, and welfare; to state revenue collections; and to the economy of the state." Broward Daily Business Review, July 30, 2001.

On the other side: He did rule against the State of Florida and Jeb Bush when he "blocked the state from forcing 249 poor people out of three nursing homes owned by Vencor Inc." He held a hearing to determine if Gov. Jeb Bush "overstepped his authority in cutting off Medicaid funding to the three homes, along with three others." "It is not acceptable to me that anyone, especially the most defenseless among us, should be forced to endure consistently poor living conditions." St. Petersburg Times, October 16, 2000.

In that case, he issued an emergency temporary restraining order prohihibiting "curtailment of Medicaid funds at three Vencor facilities and halting "state efforts to relocate 249 Medicaid patients from the three nursing homes." St. Petersburg Times, October 11, 2000.

He was nominated and confirmed with bipartisan support.

  • He was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on May 25, 2000. St. Petersburg Times, May 25, 2000.

The Senate Wednesday unanimously confirmed James D. Whittemore, a circuit judge from Hillsborough County, to serve as a judge on the federal bench in the Middle District of Florida. Although Democrats have long complained that Republicans intentionally stalled many of President Clinton's judicial nominations for political reasons, Whittemore did not have much of a wait. He was nominated in October 1999 after Florida Sens. Bob Graham, a Democrat, and Connie Mack, a Republican, recommended him.

Whittemore, 47, has been a judge in the 13th Circuit in Hillsborough County since 1990. He was named Jurist of the Year by the Hillsborough County Bar Association in 1998. Whittemore, of Temple Terrace, received his law degree from Stetson University in 1977. A former private attorney and public defender, he will replace retiring judge Terrell Hodges on the Middle District bench.

Before that,

  • Whittemore received a bachelor's degree with honors in business administration from the University of Florida in 1974. Tampa Tribune (Florida) May 25, 2000.
  • A press release from the day of his nomination says (M2 PRESSWIRE October 21, 1999):

James D. Whittemore, of Temple Terrace, Florida, has served as a Circuit Court Judge on the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, Florida since 1990. Prior to his appointment to the court, Whittemore was a sole practitioner in Tampa from 1987 to 1990; an associate at Whittemore & Campbell, P.A. from 1982 to 1987; and an associate at Whittemore & Seybold, P.A. from 1981 to 1982. He also served as an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Office of Federal Public Defender from 1978 to 1981 and as a law clerk and associate at Bauer, Morlan & Wells, P.A. in 1977. Whittemore received his B.S. in Business Administration, with honors, from the University of Florida in 1974 and his J.D. from Stetson University College of Law in 1977.

That sums up the press on his federal court decisions for the past 5 years. It seems to me that any attempt to cast him as an activist or liberal Judge will fail.

Update: The groundless smears from the churchfolk and anti-choicers and columnists begin. And [Via Balloon Juice.]

< A Dorm Cleaning Service as Class Warfare? | Santorum Questions Death Penalty >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#1)
    by a on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 10:59:10 PM EST
    The judge's record doesn't matter one iota to Republicans or main stream media hacks. If he rules against reinserting the feeding tube, there will be a media frenzy denouncing Clinton activist federal judges.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#2)
    by cp on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 11:18:17 PM EST
    you didn't mention how many of those decisions had been overturned/reversed/remanded on appeals. i believe his sustention rate may have some influence on his ruling in this, or any case he handles. just out of curiousity, is there some weird connection between sex oriented businesses, and religious entities in that area? lol

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 11:22:17 PM EST
    It seems to me that any attempt to cast him as an activist or liberal Judge will fail.
    I might have thought the same thing before I found out that Sen. Kerry is an adulterous communist sympathizer who faked his own war wounds while killing unarmed civilians in Vietnam. Anything is possible with the Republican Noise Machine.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 11:31:59 PM EST
    I have pretty extensive experience with federal district court judges, and can tell you that these are smart, proud people who don't like to pushed around by anyone, whether it be lawyers or Congress. I think the judge will conscientiously listen to all the arguments, read all of the submitted briefs and materials, and find the quickest and most appeal-proof way of denying the parents the relief they seek. I really doubt he will address any constitutional issues; federal judges will not generally address constitutional issues unless absolutely necessary. The judge may sneak in some language taking Congress to task for the way in which the case reached his desk.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 12:17:52 AM EST
    CP: Yes there is a connection. Lakeland, Polk County and environs is the ultimate bible belt, filled with evangelicals, Baptists and fundamentalists. They are an extreme blend of social conservatism and religious fervor. One writer said there are as many churches in this part of Florida as there are pubs in Dublin. The billboards are unreal. Rapture awaits.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 12:43:59 AM EST
    I just don't understand this new game. Bush appears to be palying the great president "role" and the judge is the wrong doer! if the woman can open her eye and react to light and watch with life in her eyes she is alive! the state and our boys in washington are setup some real evil doing, watch out people, its a game that you may play someday. Let her be.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#7)
    by cp on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 04:04:35 AM EST
    TL, ever been to nashville? claims to have more churches per capita than any other city in the nation, and i believe it. it may have more topless bars and other "adult" oriented businesses per capita as well. they advertize, on huge billboards, nearly side by side! i was stunned by this, the first time i ever went there. nothing opens before 12noon on sunday there, after church lets out, and people start to recover from the previous night's festivities. strange combination. lol

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 04:54:39 AM EST
    Washington Post website at 7:40AM EST Tues: Judge Refuses to Intervene on Schiavo Case Federal Judge Declines to Order Reinsertion of Feeding Tube By Manuel Roig-Franzia and Lexie Verdon Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, March 22, 2005; 7:22 AM A federal judge in Tampa early this morning denied a request from the parents of Terri Schiavo to reinsert a feeding tube into the brain damaged woman. U.S. District Judge James Whittemore wrote that Terri Schiavo's "life and liberty interests" had been protected by Florida courts, the Associated Press reported. Despite "these difficult and time strained circumstances," he wrote, "this court is constrained to apply the law to the issues before it."

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#9)
    by Pete Guither on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 05:53:27 AM EST
    Here's the denial (pdf). The judge did get in a couple of subtle digs against Congress: At one point he said: "While there may be substantial issues concerning the constitutionality of the Act, for purposes of considering temporary injunctive relief, the Act is presumed to be constitutional..." He also mentioned the contradiction that Congress required him to examine the case de novo (notwithstanding previous court proceedings) and yet the entire complaint was allegations of problems from previous court proceedings. And he finished: "Even under these difficult and time strained circumstances, however, and notwithstanding Congress' expressed interest in the welfare of Theresa Schiavo, this court is constrained to apply the law to the issues before it."

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#10)
    by Kitt on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 06:04:37 AM EST
    And it is comments like this: ..""I'm sure it will be appealed. But it just seems to my family that these judges are adamant on seeing that my sister dies," he said on ABC's "Good Morning America." {He' being Bobby Schindler}. "Whittemore had made clear at Monday's hearing that he could issue the emergency order only if he believed the Schindlers would be likely to succeed when the full case was heard in the federal court." It's about the law. And even when the law rules, they buck it. Family values, respect for life, respect for this country's laws, this country's foundations - what bullsh*t. They respect nothing.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 06:26:44 AM EST
    et al - The judge has ruled. I find his ruling discourging, disgusting and unbelievable. cp - Which bothered you most? The bars or the churches? kitt writes - "It's about the law. And even when the law rules, they buck it." And what law? A law based on the unproven word of a husband who apparently wants her dead for ome unknown reason? If Terri had been a convicted murderer she would have received more sympathy and support. How can any judge kill someone based on only another person's word? I thought the "culture of death" comments over the past several days to be off target. This morning I find them exactly correct.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 06:43:26 AM EST
    This about the rights of individuals to live and die with dignity and the Republicans don't care about either This is not the first time they have interfered and lost in this issue But they don't care --it's just more hate based fodder for them Keep those evangelical Christians all charged up --hate is the growth industry of the Republican party not respect for life They have shown not respect for life Remember Viriginia Governor Gilmre's disgusting grandstanding --this is the same thing

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 07:01:47 AM EST
    nothing opens before 12noon on sunday [in Nashville], after church lets out, and people start to recover from the previous night's festivities. strange combination.
    Not true. The stores can't sell beer until after 12 on Sunday, but there's no blue law restricting commerce before noon or anything like that. And as far as the strip joints are concerned... there are quite a few of them, true, but a number have been closed lately by court order. That's not to mention all of the back-&-forth of city ordinances regarding the conduct of adult entertainment. It is an odd combination, true. We are a drinking city with a music problem. But I'll take the churches and the trifling blue laws for the opportunity to see legendary artists at arms' length.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#14)
    by David on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 07:22:41 AM EST
    Looks like Rove will hype this activist judge's (Clinton) ruling and Senate repugs will use the ruling and probable future rulings to go nuclear to get their appointments.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 07:24:06 AM EST
    ""I'm sure it will be appealed."
    appealed until you get a fellow winger that holds the repug line, the law is all good as long as it serves your interest. how many judges, is 21 not enough, have to tell you hypocrites, it is time for this woman to move on to the next phase. despite the wingnut outburst and cries of outrage, the right decision was reached/upheld, again. for once practice what you preach "get over it".

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 07:25:14 AM EST
    This is about the next congressional elections and about the looney voting bloc

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 07:59:17 AM EST
    Does anyone think that it's odd that Ms. Schiavo became ill via bulemia? Possibly stemming from over-controlling parents and now they're still still to feed her?

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 07:59:48 AM EST
    Hey PPJ: My wife and I have both agreed that neither wants to live in a pvs state, my parents disagree with my decision. I know that my parents are Jesus freaks so I make sure that i have it in writing. Culture of death or culture of "we are right and you are wrong?" I have a right to choose if i want life support as a veggie, my parents have no right to usurp that decision.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 08:03:25 AM EST
    What a load - And what proof do you have that this woman wants to end her life? Think about it. BTW - I just heard her brother say that when the husband was suing for $20M, he was claiming that he loved her and needed the money to care for her. Three months after the suit was over, and he had $1,000,000, he was demanding that she not be treated for a life threatening infection. And.... The "the I heard her say she wouldn't want to live like that" claim wasn't made until 1997, some 7 years later. et al - If this woman had a living will, or any written information that she did not want to be fed through a tube, I would be in agreement. But, there is no written proof. And with all the things coming to light, why not wait? Why not investigate? Why do you want to make this political? You may intone "rule of law," but the morning after she is dead, many will start to see that your opposition was a mere hissy fit against Bush. That will insure he gets the judges he wants, losses in the mid terms and probably a Repub win in '08.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 08:07:35 AM EST
    The sanctity of marriage and the courts and 19 now 20 judges have reviewed this case unlike you they have facts how do you claim she does not when her husband knows she does PPJ the biggest hypocrite poster here

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 08:18:46 AM EST
    PPJ I agree and am uncomfortable about the lack of a living will but how many judges agreed with the decision, 3, 5, 20? Who is their spokesperson, Randall Terry? He is credible (via mediamatters.org) According to a June 14, 2003, report by the conservative World Magazine (no longer available online, but reprinted on the right-wing bulletin board Free Republic), Terry solicited donations by declaring on his website that "The purveyors of abortion on demand have stripped Randall Terry of everything he owned," but failed to disclose that the money would be used to pay for his new $432,000 house. The report noted Terry's defense: "Terry told World that he wanted a home where his family will be safe and where 'we could entertain people of stature, people of importance. I have a lot of important people that come through my home. And I will have more important people come through my home.' " World noted that the same month he paid the deposit on his new home, a court ruled that Terry, who divorced his first wife and has remarried, "was not paying a fair share of child support." In an article on his website, Terry denounced the World report as "journalistic trash, a 'hit piece' of malice and misinformation." Terry's words and personal life have also stirred controversy. As the Fort Wayne (Indiana) News Sentinel reported on August 16, 1993, at an anti-abortion rally in Fort Wayne, Terry said "Our goal is a Christian nation. ... We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism. ... Theocracy means God rules. I've got a hot flash. God rules." In that same speech, Terry also stated that "If a Christian voted for [former President Bill] Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple." According to a March 18, 2004, press release, Terry declared on his radio program that "Islam dictates followers use killing and terror to convert Western infidels." As The Washington Post reported on February 12, 2000, in his 1995 book The Judgment of God Terry wrote that "homosexuals and lesbians are no longer content to secretly live in sin, but now want to glorify their perversions." In a May 25, 2004, interview about his gay son with The Advocate, Terry stated that homosexuality is a "sexual addiction" that shouldn't be rewarded with "special civil rights."

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 08:19:41 AM EST
    ps this is part of a conerted effort by Republicans to deny the right to die with dignity they have opposed the Oregon law and in Wisconsin medical personnel can ignore people's wishes if they are opposed. This is the worst kind of political abuse

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 08:27:55 AM EST
    PPJ-- Her brain is not functioning. Her "reactions" are automatic and not purposeful. I've dealt with both extremely mentally handicapped people and had to deal with my own mother's brain death. There's a difference between profound retardation and a coma. Terri cannot communicate. She never will communicate. She's been that way for FIFTEEN YEARS. This will not change. You call the US a "culture of death." Why does the right-wing religeous establishment refuse to accept the inevitability of death? If Terri were in just about any other nation on Earth today, she'd be dead. Your heart bleeds for Terri as her feeding tube remains disconnected. Does it bleed for the millions of poor children who are fully functioning but will be denied food today because of their poverty? Talk about your misplaced priorities. Culture of death? You guys have completely focussed on a comatose woman and let slip past the second anniversary of our invasion of Iraq. And another soldier died yesterday. Did your heart bleed for him? I miss reality.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 08:28:23 AM EST
    I could just imagine the smear campaign against me or my wife if I were in the position. My parents, being devout christians would clearly attack her medical history, her financial history and her desire to move on with her life. There are enough issues on both sides of the fence with her and I that it would be truly sensational and easily manipulated by those that cared more about a vegetative state than our wishes. Get a living will.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 08:47:58 AM EST
    It can be argued that she is already dead. Her body survives for artificial reasons (feeding tubes). If there is a God who takes responsibility for life/death, then the God will intervene to assure the appropriate action in this case. If there is no God, then the action taken should be up the the individual involved (Terri, who has apparently chosen already per the courts) should be in control, and her wishes should be followed. So remove the feeding tube (an artificial construct imposed by human and not God's will) and see what happens.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 08:48:40 AM EST
    The Judge was entirely 100% correct ON THE LAW. The plaintiffs were attempting to get a temporary restraining order (TRO) to reinsert the tube. In order to do so, they have to jump through the same hoops that every single person who has ever requested a TRO and who will do so afterwards have to jump through. This is the "law" as regards TRO's. (I suggest you guys strain your brains back to Remedies in law school). I further suggest you all read the opinion. 80% of the plaintiffs "Federal" claims are wholly without merit and actually, border on legally frivilous and the remaining 20% are foreclosed by Florida statute and case law. Her parents (and laywers) claims for procedural due process right violations are the pinnacle of idiocy. I can think of nobody else who has had more opportunity to litigate and re-litigate (in other words - more process) than this woman's parents. Enough is enough. They lose in Court over and over and over and over for a reason. It's not because Judge's are anti-life left wing psychos...its because Judges have to apply the law to the facts. Yes it can be disturbing and not everybody agrees with it. But it is what it is. Welcome to the real world. I predict appellate court affirms quickly then U.S. Sup Ct delays, she dies in the meantine, then the plaintiffs lose standing, since the congressional law is specifically for terry shiavo...it is not decided upon "capable of repetition yet evading review" grounds. Republicans claim they did everything they could to save her life and Terry Schiavo becomes a f-ing martyr for repubs to gain even more control on their ever growing fascist govererment. Welcome to Hell.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 09:01:40 AM EST
    Jennifer - what a fascinating insight! I also heard a quote from the mother: "She is my life". That tells so much. Really, this is not about poor Terry anymore. This is so tragic for all concerned, and made worse a million times over by DeLay and the American Taliban.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 09:08:59 AM EST
    Reichstaggering. I've used that word before but it applies well here, perhaps moreso than any other time since 9-11. At least history class will be easier now: We have one less branch of government to deal with. Now all we have to do is wait for Palpatine/Bush to declare a 'War on Life' emergency and absorb the Legislative branch into the Executive branch and we can enjoy the warmth of tyranny. Exaggerrating? Probably. But these guys make hay with every little bill that gets passed under their control, and trust is just a word to them.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 09:17:54 AM EST
    You know, for a believing Christian, death really is no big deal. Get over it, people! Sure, killing someone else intentionally, now that's a huge sin to a Christian. But losing this life in exchange for the next? Puhleeze. The Christian attitude can be found in the words Thomas More says to his executioner in Robert Bolt's play: "Friend , be not afraid of your office. You send me to God." Death is NOT an utterly catclysmic punishment for Christians. (The above was plagiarized from this fellow.)

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 09:28:02 AM EST
    My understanding was that they did all try to rehabilitate her until it became clear that there was no hope of improvement. Her brain deteriorated further. Lots of doctors looked at her, including one who was her temporary guardian a couple of years ago and was interviewed on NPR yesterday, who said he started out in favor of keeping her on life support, but after spending hours with her, came to believe that she wasn't really there, anymore. Anyway, seems to me that Michael Schiavo wanted to keep her alive while there was hope that she'd get better, and then when it seemed there wasn't such hope, then it became relevant to say she wouldn't have wanted to live "like this." Anyway, thought everyone might be interested in more background on the case -- plus a lot of information on crafting your own directives to avoid these kinds of conflicts in your own family! http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/schiavo/

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 09:51:59 AM EST
    The judge's decision was the antithesis of judicial activism. He followed the law and honored the state court rulings as they should have been honored. Many judges who were well informed about this case believed that Michael Schiavo's argument had credibility. So people like PPj hear some unsubstantited junk on tabloid TV and decide they know better. Get real. It is highly likely that 25 year old Terri Schiavo, who was starving herself because she wanted to be beautiful, would not have said she'd want to be a very public vegetable on life support. I bet her parents are guilty as hell for failing to recognize or possibly even contributing to her eating disorder. Right now they are robbing her of her final dignity so she can be their life. Their time would be better spent starting a foundation in Terri's honor to help other young women overcome eating disorders. I would haunt my parents forever if they did this to me.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 10:46:21 AM EST
    That sums up the press on his federal court decisions for the past 5 years. It seems to me that any attempt to cast him as an activist or liberal Judge will fail. Coulda also said in July, 2004: That sums up the story of John Kerry's time in Vietnam. It seems to me that any attempt to cast him as a coward or phony will fail. No one is immune to the Republican Smear Machine.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 11:02:10 AM EST
    I suspect that all of the money from the settlement had to be used to pay for Terri's care prior to her going on Medicaid. I suspect that the husband doesn't have much if any of the settlement money making the greed argument a huge red herring. The husband could have easily let the parents take over as their daughter's guardian years ago & not have to go through years of hell. The only reason I can imagine that he would have hung in this long & taken this much abuse it that he truly loved his wife & these were her wishes. I don't see any basis other than spite for anyone to question the validity of the husband's testimony whether there are other witnesses or not. Apparantely 20 judges have seen it this way also. Terri is a lucky woman in many respects because if her husband has not proven that he loved her no man can ever prove their love for their wife.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 11:46:44 AM EST
    JL - Glad to see the discomfort. It indicates a caring others have not shown. And I don't care about who the spokesperson is, or is not. What I care about is this. The state is about to take a defenseless person's life because a second party with no creditability (In my view.) towards that person, claims that she said something. Folks, that's horse hockey. DavidNYC - What does politics have to do with this? Do you think this woman is a Republican? Democrat? Deanna - Blame the parents? Typical Left wing move. BTW - You have no right to make a claim that I picked up the information from a tabloid. I heard that from her brother's lips during a radio interview. Is he lying? Is the busband lying? I don't know. I want to find out. Why don't you? Dan - As posted earlier, about $435,000 of the $1,000,000 has been used for legal fees to try and get the tube removed. About $50,000 remains. Try Google. And love her? Then why has he been engaged in long term relationships and fathering children out of wedlock? Are you a supporter of polygamy?

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 12:13:21 PM EST
    Finally PPJ's true position he doesn't give a crap about tha patient or the process -he views her as an innocent life. He has no respect for her will and for the sanctity of her marriage. And he clearly did not bother to read the guardian's report because that would conflict with his fake outrage over the process

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 12:15:45 PM EST
    Finally the truth from PPJ he doesn't care about the sanctity of marriage, the guardian's report or the legal process. He believes this woman is an innocent victim. He probably agrees with the Wisconsin law tha allows medical personal to ignore a written living will. PPJ ignored the guardian's report and his willing to trample on the sancity of marriage to impose his will on this couple. And the fake outrage over the process is ludicrous.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 12:15:55 PM EST
    Jim, you and i disagree on who is to believe....But at the core it sounds to me as if you respect "living wills" and "choice". I think it is really inhumane to keep her alive in that condition which of course goes to my own desire should i be pvs. Sucks for the parents though because they want some terri as opposed to no terri...

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 01:07:55 PM EST
    Certainly a difficult situation, but blaming the husband is no more justifiable than blaming the parents. In the end, we can all sit here and critique it, but legally this is the husband's decision and it has been handled and investigated in accordance with the applicable laws. It is no more believable that she would want to live in a PVS than it is that she made statements that she would not want to do so. The law with regard to guardianship is clear and this decision is within his purview. You are coming in at the tail end of a long process, asking for more investigation. It has been disputed and reviewed for seven years. There are no new facts that will come to light – believe me – I live here where it is happening and we have been hearing this for a lot longer than the rest of the country. Having been subjected to this for years, I do not see where the parents have any credibility left – filing lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit because they do not accept that facts and have been victimized by a quack physician and a radical anti-abortionist who is in it for his own good. Attack the husband…typical right wing move. And you say it isn’t political. Michael Schiavo has been offered $1,000,000 to walk away and will not do so (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4339033.stm - try Google). Kind of obviates a discussion of profit motive, don’t you think.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 01:22:22 PM EST
    Everyone has the right to refuse medical treatment, and feeding tubes inserted to the body is a medical treatment. It surprises me that so many people choose to discount the husbands claim. Why is that so hard to beleive when the polls show that 87% to 91% of Americans would choose to have the tubes removed? Not having written down your personal choice does not mean that you have choosen to stay on life support. I have not written it down until now: Personally speaking if it was me, I say remove the tubes and hold a pillow over my face.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 01:35:52 PM EST
    I say remove the tubes and hold a pillow over my face.
    would recommend that one, you know, it would lead to all types of negative circumstances and consequences for your assistance, thinking kevorkian. how about a HST, may he RIP, with audio witnesses! ref 1st sentence.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 01:36:48 PM EST
    should read: would not recommend...

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 02:33:15 PM EST
    You Liberals sure have taken the bait this time. Hook, Line, and Sinker. Even the Democrat party did not oppose the bill in the Senate, and fully half of the Democrat Rep's voted FOR the bill in the House. What does that tell you? That 3/4 of of the Democrat party understands something you don't? Obviously. Good luck with that. Political Headline, March 2005. "Liberals hit rock bottom, keep digging".

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 03:15:21 PM EST
    Horse's Patoot glad to see this is all just a big game to you with winners and losers too bad there won't be anyone left to help when they come for you

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 03:27:16 PM EST
    jim, like usual, you prove yourself to be an idiot. it's not just her husband's word, it's also the doctors. sort of like you, there's no brain function left. let her die with dignity.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 04:03:51 PM EST
    Christ. Now we're going to have to have a media debate about bars and prostitutes in the same breath as Terry S.? Can anyone say dignity.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#48)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 04:56:52 PM EST
    This is our government being controlled by a minority of the electorate under the guise of the pro life movement. The radical christians who want to make abortion illegal are using the Schindlers like puppets. They have intimidated congress enough to get them into session on a Sunday evening to forward this agenda. Even though 70% of the population believe the government should stay out of the issue, the media continues it's parade of prolifers and one self important MD who contradicts every one of his colleagues by calmly stating that he believes she could walk some day. CNN places distorted graphics that Media Matters has to call them on. The neocon/christian right is in control. They need to be taken down.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 05:44:32 PM EST
    If you all were really informed as to the history of the Schiavo case, you would know that the true falling out began in 1993 when Michael took the $700,000 and created a trust for Terri, naming the bank as trustee. He was awarded $300,000 personally, which was his to spend as he saw fit. The trust was to be used for Terri's care,(without parental input). Check out the St. Pete Times for much more background. Read about Michael taking Terri to California for treatment. Read about Terri's father testifing that he would "cut off both of her arms and legs" to keep her alive. Of course the easy road for Michael would be to walk away, but the right thing to do is not always the easiest thing to do. He really believes that he is her last advocate. If he walks away, he is condeming her to remain locked in an unresponsive body and mind. Bottom line, this whole situation is nobody's business, especially the NOT government's.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#50)
    by cp on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 05:54:16 PM EST
    ppj - neither the churches nor the adult oriented businesses bother me at all, i just found it amusing that they are so many, and nearly side by side, in the same city. you may not know what ms. schiavo's wish's were, but i, and over 20 judges, feel that her husband does. so far, his credibility far outranks yours on the subject, and her parent's as well. it's been "investigated" for over 7 years. what else do you think a new "investigation" is going to uncover? frankly, had this happened 50 or 75 years ago, she'd be dead already. it's only due to advanced medical technology that her body continues to survive. her brain is operating solely on auto-pilot, and not even all of that, else she'd be able to eat and drink w/o benefit of a feeding tube. for bill frist to opine a medical diagnosis, without ever having actually physically examining her, strikes me as borderline malpractice. no wonder he wants tort reform! if a prisoner on death row were in this state, i submit that our government would be moving as quickly as possible to remove the tube. hey, they were going to kill him/her anyway, what's the problem? his/her wishes in the matter would not be at issue. on the other hand, if your dog was in this state, you would take it to vet, and have it put mercifully to sleep. no one would raise a fuss.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 10:17:13 PM EST
    This PPJ guy is nuts. If (as he says) the fact of Ms. Schiavo's wish not to be kept alive by external measures did not arise until years after her injury, I don't think that means what he thinks it means. I suspect that really means that Michael Schiavo tried everything he could for as long as he could until he finally realized that no treatment would be successful. Only then would Ms. Schiavo's wishes in this regard become relevant. Also, we live under the rule of law. This means that we have rules under which court decisions are made. Courts around the courtry, both state and federal, apply these rules every day. One of these rules is that the finder of fact (in this case the Fla trial judge) listens to the opposing facts and makes a determination as to what the truth really is. That is, he listened to the husband and his witnesses, including doctors, then listened to the parents and their witnesses, including doctors, and determined that Michael Schiavo was telling the truth about his wife's wishes. That's what trials are for. That's what judges (and, under other circumstances juries) do. As for this "he's lying, or they're lying," it's complete nonsense. I have been a litigator for 13 years. I have dealt with dozens of situations in which different parties tell different stories, yet in which I thought neither side was lying. It is human nature to remember facts as you want them to be, and not necessarily as they are. Based on what I know, I disagree with the parents; however, I would not accuse them of lying, only selective memory based on their desire that their daugher may some day recover.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 05:19:33 AM EST
    Mike R - "I suspect that really means that Michael Schiavo tried everything he could for as long.." According to the time line as I understand it he started trying to remove the tubes about three months after the lawsuit, which was under three years. The other issue is this. She was diagnosed within a year. If he was concerned with her desires, then he should haved come forward at that point. He did not. Instead, he sued, asking for $20M, claiming he was going to take her home and care for her for the rest of her life. You see, the facts and time line do not support what you "suspect." As for lying, change it to selective memory if you like. I believe the husbands selective memory to be in error because I suspect his motives. I may be nuts, but I know BS when I see it and when I hear it. And I "suspect" your mind was made up when the discussion started.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 08:00:24 AM EST
    The other issue is this. She was diagnosed within a year. If he was concerned with her desires, then he should haved come forward at that point. He did not. Instead, he sued, asking for $20M, claiming he was going to take her home and care for her for the rest of her life. Lame. She was diagnosed as brain-dead within a year, but there was still some tiny hope that she might get slightly better, because at that time she still had a brain that looked like a brain. Over the next several years, her brain slowly liquified as spinal fluid leaked into the brain cavity and replaced the deteriorating brain tissue. Forty percent of what used to be her brain is now liquid, which was not the case a year after the brain damage occurred when Michael was asking for money to care for her. Get a grip ppj. You don't know what you're talking about. But then we all know that.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 12:00:35 PM EST
    PPJ: Talk about having your mind made up when the discussion started! Who am I going to believe about the husband's "motives": you, or a trial judge who has handled the case for 7 years? The bottom line is that the state of Fla has procedures to handle cases like this; there simply are no procedures which allow you, Tom Delay, etc., to substitute your judgment for that of the trial court. Contrary to usual wingnut opinion, judges generally are not politically driven, particularly on matters such as this. I've been a litigator for 13 years, in both state and federal courts, and can tell you that judges agonize over decisions like this. That's not what you want to hear, but it's the truth. Finally, the undertone in all wingnut arguments is that there is a pot of gold in the form of malpractice settlement dollars waiting for Michael Schiavo if he can only "kill off" his wife. The Fla court has monitored how the settlement money has been spent; again, there are procedures for this type of situation that people like you simply either don't know or don't understand. You are so driven by your ideology that you are willing to throw the entire legal system out the window.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 06:42:55 PM EST
    Mike R - When you tell me that you have been a litagor - is that an attorney or a paralegal? - and then tell me that judges "generally" aren't politically driven, I just want to giggle. Why the weasle words like "litagor" and "generally?" I mean you are an attorney, or not. And is "generally" 10% or 90%? And since I posted, with links, that there is only about $50K left, your claim about me demonstrates you haven't done your research. I do hope you do better before you go trial. As for throwing something out the widnow. If the legal system can do no better than this, it should be fixed. Finally, as a social liberal, I LOL when I see the Left call someone "wingnut." I can just see it now. You and some right winger yelling "moonbat!" and "wingnut!" at each other, and then both of you walking away, each convinced of your superior intelligence. Again. The judical system would do well to play this one again. And, if as claimed, those of us who do not believe justice has been done are shown how wrong we are, the system can preen itself and say: "See. We told you so." On the other hand.... Bas - The question in my mind, as I have commented, is not her condition. The question in my mind is this. Given the fact that there is nothing but the husband's word, and given that there are many questions regarding his motives, and given that there are many people who say she would never say what he claims, WHY NOT REVIEW IT ALL? INCLUDING ANY NEW TESTIMONY? BTW - I do reserve the right to understand that medical experts make many mistakes, and, as a group, can be insufferable. For the former I have deep, personable knowledge of. DA - As I keep on noting, I believe in Living Wills. When I first heard of this, I just shrugged. But the more I heard, the more curious I became. Tell me. Why do you object to a thorough review? Would hurt nothing, and if all your claims are correct, you would have something to sneer at me about for years and years. Why the fear?

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 07:50:34 PM EST
    PPJ: sorry about the heated rhetoric. This kind of case tends to produce that, but I should know better. Anyway, a litigator is a lawyer who does litigation work rather than transactional or other work, so yes, I am a lawyer and not a paralegal. I certainly can't guarantee that no judge ever lets his political views get in the way of his legal judgments. I can tell you that, especially in the federal courts, that is very rare. Also, I never said there was in fact a large sum of money that Mr. Schiavo was trying to obtain. I am saying that many people believe this to be the case, and this is a common charge leveled against him. As regards "playing this one again," our state and federal legal systems have standards for re-plays. The Florida Court of Appeals (3 times), Florida Supreme Court (3 times), federal district court judge, and 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, en banc, have all ruled that a "replay" is inappropriate here. Look, if a trial were held tomorrow, and the parents lost again, and exhausted their appeals, the parents would find more "new evidence." This case is no longer about evidence. It's about blind belief on the part of the parents (albeit an understandable belief) that Ms. Schiavo is going to recover from her 15 year vegetative condition. Finally, if you believe the system should be fixed, then by all means petition your state and local legislators to do so. Some believe that the law should be that written, rather than verbal, directives should be required in this situation. I disagree, but I don't think that would be an entirely unreasonable approach. What we cannot do, in a country which operates under the rule of law, is change the rules for a single case simply because a vocal minority isn't satisfied with the results of the case.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 07:51:31 PM EST
    It is a sad day indeed for ANY decent American man woman or child - that we have lived to see the insanity and cruelty done in the name of money and law. Oh yes - THE LAW! I seem to remember those people at Nuremberg were " just doing what the judges ordered them to do" -- the law you know. I damn you to hell Judge Whittemore- for your cruelty and cowardice. I have been all over the world and experienced countries where death and cruelty are commonplace - but showed more compassion than this. No kids - monsters aren't grotesque horrors of our immagination. They are REAL - and live here among us. One of them lives at Inverness Ave - right here among decent people. I pray that i willnever live long enough to see the day when i become so disabled that i can no onger differentiate between good and evil. May God have mercy on your soul - Judge Whittemore

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 10:53:57 PM EST
    I'm an R.N.for over 30 years who has worked with many people in Terri's condition. She is brain damaged not brain dead. She is non-verbal not non-responsive largely because her husband has denied her the benefit of speech and physical therapy. Yet she is most certainly vocal. She cannot move her arms and legs but she can and in fact has moved a nation. This is not simply a right to die issue. Amoung many other things it is also an animal rights issue. The treatment and lives of other animal species are protected more than Terri Schiavo's is being protected at present. She's an animal too! People are prosecuted for cruelty to animals. Thirsting and starving to death is psychological and physiological cruelty beyond description. It causes pain and immeasurable suffering akin to something a prisoner of war might relate to. It is Kevorkianesque without the syringe. A drawn out torture. It would do the esteemed and far too powerful justices well to imagine themselves as Terri. Thirsty beyond belief. Craving a single drop of water. Being trapped in a speechless world in which you rely on those who love you (as in parents and siblings, not as in bigamist husband) to speak on your behalf. To be kind to you. To let you live as comfortably as possible without making judgement as to how you would presently feel about the quality of your life, without fear of being murdered. How, in the farthest stretch of one's imagination can one believe that the law is protective of those who cannot speak for themselves when it rules that Terri can be starved to death in the name of "compassion". Terri's husband obviously has his own agends - a silent wife, another wife in common law called a "fiance" although he's still legally married, and two children he aspires to legitimize. Michael is being supported by the courts because he claims as Terri's "husband" he has the sole right to make medical decisions and to speak on her behalf. Yet as the common law "husband" of another woman I believe Terri is the weight around his neck as surely as Scott Peterson thought Laci a weight. Peterson weighed Laci down to a watery death just as Schiavo wants to weigh down Terri to a dehydrated death from lack of water and nutrition. The parallels are quite astounding. Schiavo would be prosecuted for cruelty if he starved his dog to death yet Judge Greer, Judge Wittemore et al are aiding and abeting, enabling Schiavo to kill his wife based on his "word that Teri would want it that way. I can't help but wonder if his word at his wedding to Terri - "till death do us part" was as meaningful and wilth as pure intent as he would have us believe his word is now about what he says she once said many years ago. I am presently working with a 44 year old man with ALS. Prior to his experiencing air hunger as his disease progressed, he had a living will stating there were to be no extraordinary measures. No feeding tube, no vent, no anything. He recinded it post haste when the situation actually occurred. Thinking and hypothesizing what one would do often changes when the theoretical becomes a subjective reality and matter of life and death. I've seen it over and over in my professional practice. This is a multifaceted issue. Terri cannot speak now for herself. Her husband has denied her the benefit of all possibility of that. There are debates and conflicts that will rage on and on ad nauseum in the halls of law and medicine. There will be a revisiting of the laws governing incapacitated, speechless, living will-less adults. There is the rule of law, there are issues of constitutional jurisprudence, and on and on it goes. While the jurisbabble goes on doesn't it seem to be the only prudent thing to do to reinsert Terri's feeding tube. When the battle is over there will surely be misgivings and second thoughts by those who have allowed her to be murdered in the name of justice. When you're dead you're dead for a long time with no chance to repair mistakes in the law or the decision making process. It is our human, moral and legal responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves. There is nothing to proove Terri feels she wants to die now. Therefore the decision for her life must be made right now. One last thought on the esteemed experts who say death by dehydration is not cruel or painful. The next time these judges and physicians get to the 18th hole after hours on the golf couse in the blazing Florida sun and crave that nice cold bottle of water, or something stronger at the 19th hole, let them go another 6 days before quenching their thirst. THEN let them revisit their position. Ellen Blaine, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 11:47:17 PM EST
    Does congress still have sepena (spelling?) power for tomorrow..er..today to take a look at Terri?

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 02:16:40 AM EST
    Please take Terri into custody as soon as possible. Forget the courts, republican or democrats, it's not about them. It's about Terri Schiavo. Michael lied to the court in his own words!!! (1) He slipped up when his first words were, " I believe Terri would not want to live like this" HIS words, NOT Terri's. We all know with the right to die advocate George Felos, it became the big LIE "Terri's wish." The reason Michael has kept a low profile is because his attorney doesn't want him talking. Here is another slip from the Larry King Live Show a couple of days ago. (2) KING: Have you had any contact with the family today? This is a sad day all the way around, Michael. We know of your dispute. M. SCHIAVO: I've had no contact with them. KING: No contact at all? M. SCHIAVO: No. KING: Do you understand how they feel? M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want.. A little Freudian slip..humm? ( I wonder who "we" is) Just read how cocky this loving husband really is. Question: Have you considered turning the guardianship over to Mr. and Mrs. Schindler? Schiavo: No, I have not. Question: And why? Schiavo: I think that's pretty self-explanatory. (3) Question: I'd like to hear your answer. Schiavo: Basically I don't want to do it. (thinking of himself again) Question: And why don't you want to do it? Schiavo: Because they put me through pretty much hell the last few years. Question: And can you describe what you mean by hell? Schiavo: The litigations they put me through. Question: Any other specifics besides the litigation? Schiavo: Just their attitude towards me because of the litigations. There is no other reason. I'm Terri's husband and I will remain guardian. Felos, Michael's lawyer, no doubt cringing at the realization of how their lie about this being about "Terri's wishes" had just been exposed, Michael Schiavo had inadvertently admitted to, moved quickly on behalf of damage control, through further (and more intensive) 'coaching' of his client. And so, in order to get MS to alter what he testified to, he called for "a minute" for purposes of what he called "clarification": Mr. Felos: There may be a question or two of clarification. Can I have just a minute to talk with my client? Question: You were also asked a question about resigning as guardian or would you consider that. Upon reflection, is there anything that you want to add in response to that question? reflection"??? Schiavo: Yeah. Another reason would be that her parents wouldn't carry out her wishes. Michael suddenly recalls "would be" somehow --- related to --- "her wishes". Sure it is!!! Any fool can see through that. Greer accepted this as "clear and convincing" evidence????

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#66)
    by karen on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 04:39:44 AM EST
    Grant the husband a divorce, let him move on with his life with the woman he has been with for years and has children with. Let the parents take care of Terri, they had her.There is no Love like the love of a mother.Her parents are loving and devoted to taking the best care of there daughter possible.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 05:07:43 AM EST
    whittemore you are a murderer! you don't believe in a higher power, i would rather live in terri's body than in yours for the rest of your life. lots' of luck.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 05:17:18 AM EST
    everyone wants to know why the husband just didn't get a divorce and turn terri over to the parents. I think he is afaraid that the parents will get her the help and reabilitate her, possibly getting her to a talking stage and that would put this guy away for a long time. That's why he won't do the right thing.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 05:28:46 AM EST
    Typical of Florida Courts, the state I live in. Judge James D. Whittemore just now ruled against the Schindler faimly so he is sentencing Terri Schiavo to death. This will be the second woman this judge has sentenced to death, the first was Nancy Cruzan! THIS IS AMERICA AND TERRI IS A BEAUTIFUL YOUNG WOMAN AND WE ARE ALLOWING HER TO BE STARVED TO DEATH! If I did feed or give water to my dog or cat, I would be locked up for animal abuse and yet a human life has no value! How appalling and despicable. The husband needs to get out of it and let her loving family have her. Does anyone find it odd that Michael Schiavo did not bring out Terri's so called wishes to not be kept alive until 7 years later. If those truly were her wishes, why did he not stop it when this first happened to her. I am a former R.N. and I have witnessed many miracles of people coming out of comas against all odds! Judge George W. Greer who has been hearing the case over the years telephone#:1-727-464-6440. Light up his phone lines as I did yesterday and my friends did. Look up Judge Whittemore's phone number and light up his phone as well. God, how have we come to this! we all need to take a long hard look at this and our courts for it could happen to me or you. Dreama Runyon Wellington, FL

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#70)
    by Kitt on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 05:37:38 AM EST
    I see the lunatic fringe has caught up with us - again.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 05:59:42 AM EST
    Our nation, the USA, has sunk to a new low in allowing Terri's feeding tube to be removed. The Ten Commandments (NOT the Ten "Suggestions") clearly state "Thou Shalt Not Kill." As long as there is breath and heartbeat and brain activity, there is life. To take it is murder. I would not want to be Judge Wittemore when God Almighty, the Creator of all that is, asks this Judge "why did you do this?" There is no acceptable reason.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 06:07:20 AM EST
    SAVE TERRI! Here is the information to contact Judge James D. Whittemore: Kristin Esposito, Judicial Assistant, phone# 1-813-301-5880. Email Addy: http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/feedback.htm. Judges website: http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/jg whittemore.htm Dreama Runyon Wellington, FL

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#73)
    by Kitt on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 06:24:43 AM EST
    Why such a fear of dying? Why such a fear of letting someone go? One would think there would be joy at the possibility of meeting one's Maker - especially given the significance of this weekend within the Christian tradition - the resurrection.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 07:02:46 AM EST
    anyone who cannot understand why the rights of the handicapped must be protected, and that denying a person food is wrong, is truly a creature of the culture of death. Forge Nostris Damis and his predictions. The Church told us in the 60s birth control would lead to abortion and euthanasia, and the mainstream laughed and ridiculed. Today we find the Church knows what she is talking about when it comes to life issues. The medical profession is leading the way in this halocaust. How many know that forced sterilization of those deemed not fit to reproduce preceded the halocaust? How many know that psychiatrists were the first to suggest killing certain people in Germany before the halocaust? Pray.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 10:20:01 AM EST
    You are failing to uphold the 14th Amendment of the United States Consitution that says no U.S. citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. The fact that she has not had an MRI to determine what extent her brain does/does not function is a violation of due process.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#77)
    by Kitt on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 12:40:34 PM EST
    An MRI will not show much more than the CT; in fact a CT is a better diagnostic tool for certain things, having thinner cuts, etc. Due process; there's been due process. Seven years worth. Get over it - move on; this isn't your family.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#78)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 12:46:11 PM EST
    I find the ultimate hypocrisy of the left in this issue. All of a sudden they are for state's rights. I grew up in the 50's and 60's and heard this same argument from George Wallace and Ross Barnett and Bull Connor. The Congress has no problem telling states they must have a drinking age of 21 or blood alcohol limits of .08, or motor voter election registrations. The courts have no problem telling 50 states that their abortion laws are invalid or that their laws concerning juvenille executions are toast. The federal government controls schools while providing 9 per cent of funding. The courts can tell the states that their laws on sodomy are invalid or that their method of deciding capital punishment cases are worthless. The libs love the government intervention when it furthers their agenda--and it's coming mainly from the unelected judiciary. Why do you think they are going to the mat over judicial appointments? If we were to follow George Wallace and states rights, then we should still have segregated schools, toilets,restaurants lodging and minorities would be at the mercy of whatever state they happened to be in at the time.....THINK and try to be intellectually honest about the argument.

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#79)
    by Kitt on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 04:53:26 PM EST
    No kidding, Sid. I find the ultimate hypocrisy of the likes of you to be so-called “right to life” but yet promote a war based upon lies that has resulted in how many Iraqis being murdered; not to speak of the children killed there - and the children there who have been exposed to depleted uranium. Educate yourself some. The libs...... the left.....it’s always someone other than you that’s the problem, huh Sid. Those of you who bully, ignore boundaries and insert yourselves in other people’s business - you haven’t contributing to any of this? An unelected judiciary - the Supreme Court is unelected, bête. The judges who have upheld the decisions all week are Republican-nominated. The judge who dissented on the 11th circuit (2/1) was Democrat-nominated. Talk about hypocrisy and supporting what suits your needs. As long as the decisions go ‘your way’ then the judiciary isn’t the problem. If this isn’t about politics, then why is it suddenly a partisan finger-pointing match?

    Re: Judge Wittemore's Judicial Rulings (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 05:13:07 PM EST
    this judge james wittermore is very unfair