Terry Shiavo Poll

[The Duke]

Here is an interesting story that shows why JJs interpretation f the hearsay exemption statutes is wrong, and dangerous.

A friend of Terri Schiavo says Terri was beaten and abused by Michael, and she wanted a divorce.  Now, under JJs interpretation of the statute, this not only can be, but in fact must be admitted since Terri herself cannot be in court to refute or confirm these facts.

Under my interpretation fo the statute, a narrower (and correct, and precedent supported) view, this could never be allowed in court.  Unde rJJs view, anyone who knew Terri can come forward and make something up without needing to substantiate it.  This makes it very easy for his case to be undermined, and for the trial itself to become a kangaroo court.

[TomC]

Newsmax is not a reputable news source. What other news media are covering this claim???

[The Duke]

You haven't seen it anywhere else because its not a credible claim.  This is why it should not be admitted in court.  Yet, under JJs standard for hearsay admission, if the claim was made, credible or not, it must be admitted.

The point is not that the testimony is valid, or that Michael is a bad person, its to say that JJs mind numbing insistence that Michael's hearsay be admitted in court is plain wrong.

EDIT: MSNBC has a story that abuse has been alleged.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7012932/

[J. J.]

Here is an interesting story that shows why JJs interpretation f the hearsay exemption statutes is wrong, and dangerous.

A friend of Terri Schiavo says Terri was beaten and abused by Michael, and she wanted a divorce.  Now, under JJs interpretation of the statute, this not only can be, but in fact must be admitted since Terri herself cannot be in court to refute or confirm these facts.

Under my interpretation fo the statute, a narrower (and correct, and precedent supported) view, this could never be allowed in court.  Unde rJJs view, anyone who knew Terri can come forward and make something up without needing to substantiate it.  This makes it very easy for his case to be undermined, and for the trial itself to become a kangaroo court.

No, I just question the relevence of any of this.  Did they have arguments?  I'm pretty sure they did.  Does this have anything to do with her wishes, or her medical condition?  No.

Here is the account of the argument:

The last time she spoke to Terri, Rhodes says, she had just gone to get her hair done. Terri was toying with going back to her natural color, so Rhodes called that Saturday to ask what she had decided. Terri, Rhodes says, was in tears; she and Michael had had a fight over the cost of the salon visit.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7290818/page/3/

Big deal, a married couple has fights over a spouse spending money.  I'm not exactly seeing this something unusual.

That a friend thinks they were headed down the road to divorce isn't really evidence of what Mrs. Shiavo was planning to do.

You'll note that contrary to your statement, this is up on MSNBC site and it's from the Washington Post.  It would be admissible under the hearsay rule, if it was relevent and repeated under oath, and the story on Newsmax differs in material detail from the one in the WP.

[The Duke]

The stories may differ, but the fact that there are stories of abuse is very relevant, and they are admissible.

If it could be shown that Michael Schiavo was abusive, he could be removed as guardian.  If he is removed as guardian, then Terri lives.

[J. J.]

The stories may differ, but the fact that there are stories of abuse is very relevant, and they are admissible.

If it could be shown that Michael Schiavo was abusive, he could be removed as guardian.  If he is removed as guardian, then Terri lives.

To married people having an argument over spending money is not abuse.  At worst, it's every fourth episode of I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners, The Flintstones or The Simpsons. 

You have access to the court appoint guardians finding as Mr. Shiavo's and they have said repeatedly that his conduct was exceptionally proper.  Repeated attempt by the Schindlers on this ground for over a decade, including prior to request to remove the tube, has been rejected.

It is very interesting that the Schindlers enocouraged Mr. Shiavo to date other women and had no complaints about his treatment of their daughter, prior to Mr. Shiavo declining to give them any money from the malpractice settlement.

[The Duke]

When you're "on the road to divorce", its a bit more than  a Honeymooners episode.  To potray this as very normal in a happy marriage is wrong.

The testimony is not refuted by the Court appointed guardian saying Michael is fine, since the Court appointed guardian was not charged with investigating the Schiavo's marriage.

This next part should be fun:

1. Do you have any evidence that Terri wasn't beaten?

Have fun with the irony of this exchange.

[Alcon]

This next part should be fun:

1. Do you have any evidence that Terri wasn't beaten?

Have fun with the irony of this exchange.

In the American legal system, guilt is assumed before innocence as a matter of course. What relevance does this have?

[J. J.]

When you're "on the road to divorce", its a bit more than  a Honeymooners episode.  To potray this as very normal in a happy marriage is wrong.

The testimony is not refuted by the Court appointed guardian saying Michael is fine, since the Court appointed guardian was not charged with investigating the Schiavo's marriage.

This next part should be fun:

1. Do you have any evidence that Terri wasn't beaten?

Have fun with the irony of this exchange.

A third party claiming that to two other people are "on the road to divorce" isn't hearsay or evidence.  It's non expert opinion.  

There is another problem; they were trying to have a baby.  It is kind of hard to say the marriage was in trouble if they were trying to start a family.  That kinda indicates longer term commitment.

Ironically, there is evidence that Mrs. Schiavo was never beaten.  She worked and her co-worker was her friend.  She just describe in detail aspects of that relationship and didn't indicate any marks indicating beatings nor any conversations where Mrs. Schiavo indicated that she was ever abused.  

Further, as part of her attemps to conceive, Mrs. Shiavo had medical treatmemt, where she was examined.  There was no indication of a beating.  

Further, her injuries at the time of the collapse were to her lower back, ribs and legs, and not consistent with her being hit.  While that doesn't prove a negative, it does show that there is a preponderance that was not involved in any altercation.

Other that showing how desparate you are, illustrating you continued attempts at an ad hominim attack against Mr. Schiavo, without evidence, and illustrating you pitiful attempts at logic, what is the point of your question?

Now, here is a question in the affirmative:

2. Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as an adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

There is credible evidence that she did not.  Hearsay, as to a comment from her, stating that she wanted to be kept alive with tubes in her, would count.  If she discussed this with her parents, siblings, or friends, where is the evidence?  Why don't they come forward?

[WMS]

Commentary or not, those are despicable acts by Michael Shiavo. Although some Reps may be grandstanding on this, do any of you Dems or lefties really want to tie yourselves to supporting this kind of individual?

Also untrue.

Here is the official report on the award, from the Wolfson Report:

Michael Schiavo, on Theresa's and his own behalf, initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit against the obstetrician who had been overseeing Theresa's fertility therapy. In 1993, the malpractice action concluded in Theresa and Michael's favor, resulting in a two element award: More than $750,000 in economic damages for Theresa, and a loss of consortium award (non economic damages) of $300,000 to Michael. The court established a trust fund for Theresa's financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa's estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

Jay Wolfson was the Guardian appointed under "Terri's Law."  According to same report when he filed to remove the tube in 1998, "...Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate."

I've posted a long series of posts on this on the other thead.  Wolfson was appointed by the court and is not employed by Mr. Schiavo.

One of the most disturbing things in the report is this:

It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating. But this was just prior to the malpractice case ending.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

I have not tried to question anybodies motives, but this is strange.

Okay, let's get back to the point I was emphasizing. Especially note what I bolded, please::
From Thwe Weekly Standard
[emphasis is mine - WMS]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He killed her cats and melted down their rings so he could have one for himself? And didn't have her teeth cleaned, thus causing the extraction of five teeth? What you posted didn't respond to those issues...

*edit*
Something Interesting From Slate

[J. J.]

Commentary or not, those are despicable acts by Michael Shiavo. Although some Reps may be grandstanding on this, do any of you Dems or lefties really want to tie yourselves to supporting this kind of individual?

Also untrue.

Here is the official report on the award, from the Wolfson Report:

Michael Schiavo, on Theresa's and his own behalf, initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit against the obstetrician who had been overseeing Theresa's fertility therapy. In 1993, the malpractice action concluded in Theresa and Michael's favor, resulting in a two element award: More than $750,000 in economic damages for Theresa, and a loss of consortium award (non economic damages) of $300,000 to Michael. The court established a trust fund for Theresa's financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa's estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

Jay Wolfson was the Guardian appointed under "Terri's Law."  According to same report when he filed to remove the tube in 1998, "...Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate."

I've posted a long series of posts on this on the other thead.  Wolfson was appointed by the court and is not employed by Mr. Schiavo.

One of the most disturbing things in the report is this:

It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating. But this was just prior to the malpractice case ending.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

I have not tried to question anybodies motives, but this is strange.

Okay, let's get back to the point I was emphasizing. Especially note what I bolded, please::
From Thwe Weekly Standard
[emphasis is mine - WMS]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He killed her cats and melted down their rings so he could have one for himself? And didn't have her teeth cleaned, thus causing the extraction of five teeth? What you posted didn't respond to those issues...

*edit*
Something Interesting From Slate

First of all, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the cats (or their age/health).  I also cannot determine if the rings were melted; if so, he might have wanted something as a symbol of them being together.  Not that it is not claimed that he sold the rings.

As for his not providing for her care, the court appointed guardian evaluated her at the time:

As part of the first challenge to Michael's Guardianship, the court appointed John H. Pecarek as Guardian Ad Litem to determine if there had been any abuse by Michael Schiavo. His report, issued 1 March 1994, found no inappropriate actions and indicated that Michael had been very attentive to Theresa. After two more years of legal contention, the Schindlers action against Michael was dismissed with prejudice. Efforts to remove Michael as Guardian were attempted in subsequent years, without success.


http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

Now, I have a hard time equating "no inapproiate action" and "Michael had been very attentive to Theresa" with "he wanted his wife dead."  Note that the Schindler's suit claiming this was dismissed by the court.

Teeth due decay and cleaning someone elses teeth is difficult.  It should also be noted that Mrs. Schiavo has not been in the physical care of Mr. Schiavo, but (except for two weeks) in the care of health facilities.  The guardian appointed under "Terri's Law" noted:

After the malpractice case judgment, evidence of disaffection between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo openly emerged for the first time. The Schindlers petitioned the court to remove Michael as Guardian. They made allegations that he was not caring for Theresa, and that his behavior was disruptive to Theresa's treatment and condition.

Proceedings concluded that there was no basis for the removal of Michael as Guardian Further, it was determined that he had been very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as "a nursing home administrator's nightmare". It is notable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa's collapse, she has never had a bedsore.

(same source)

Now, none of this sounds like any abuse, quite the opposite.  The report also noted:

Of Michael Schiavo, there is the incorrect perception that he has refused to relinquish his guardianship because of financial interests, and more recently, because of allegations that he actually abused Theresa and seeks to hide this. There is no evidence in the record to substantiate any of these perceptions or allegations.

Now, these are the opinions of the guardian, Jay Wolfson, who was appointed under "Terri's Law," a law enacted to support Mrs. Schiavo.  These are also the opinions of the other guardian appointed by the court as well.  It should be noted that as guardian, Wolfson, spent 30 days observing her.  Now, neither of these was employed by either party and, in Wolfson case, was accepted by both parties.

The commentator's claim here that, "Terri's parents sued to mandate care, and their relationship with Michael was forever poisoned," is false.  Here is what happened:

By 1994, Michael's attitude and perspective about Theresa's condition changed. During the previous four years, he had insistently held to the premise that Theresa could recover and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care. This was in the face of consistent medical reports indicating that there was little or no likelihood for her improvement.

In early 1994 Theresa contracted a urinary tract infection and Michael, in consultation with Theresa's treating physician, elected not to treat the infection and simultaneously imposed a "do not resuscitate" order should Theresa experience cardiac arrest. When the nursing facility initiated an intervention to challenge this decision, Michael cancelled the orders. Following the incident involving the infection, Theresa was transferred to another skilled nursing facility.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

There was no suit by the Schindler's and Mr. Shiavo withdrew the DNR order, voluntarily.  Here the commentator misstated facts.  Speaking as someone who has guardianship, in a different state, I am routinely asked to sign DNR orders for my ward at every hospital visit.  There is nothing particularly unusual in this.

The commentator, who is not a reporter covering the story, and did not cite the souces for his claims, infers that Mr. Schiavo has control of the $700,000 received in the settlement, by saying, "As soon as Terri's money was safely in the bank.... " Again, this inference is false.  The report says:

The court established a trust fund for Theresa's financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa's estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained.

As had been noted, the fund has dwindled to $40-50 K.

I cannot claim that the claims to the cats or rings are accurate, and if accurate, what if any relevence they have to the case.  The commentator's comments and inferences that can be verified are either mistatements or false.

I would suggest you read the report in full.  It is neutral and detailed as to her treatment.

[WMS]

I'll get back to you, J.J., when I've read the report...

[J. J.]

You haven't seen it anywhere else because its not a credible claim.  This is why it should not be admitted in court.  Yet, under JJs standard for hearsay admission, if the claim was made, credible or not, it must be admitted.

The point is not that the testimony is valid, or that Michael is a bad person, its to say that JJs mind numbing insistence that Michael's hearsay be admitted in court is plain wrong.

EDIT: MSNBC has a story that abuse has been alleged.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7012932/

Well, here is what the story really says:

Those allegations, which have been raised before, are based partly on bone scans showing Terri Schiavo suffered fractures and statements she made to family and friends that she was unhappy in her marriage. Michael Schiavo has denied harming his wife.

You are trying to claim that being "unhappy" is "abuse."  Not even her parents or her friends are claiming that she ever said she was abused or that they saw any evidence of her being abused.

Actually, if she had made such a statement, it would have been admissible under the rules of hearsay.  The Schindlers don't even have hearsay evidence to support their claims.

[J. J.]

I'll get back to you, J.J., when I've read the report...

Please do, and read a few of the press interviews with Dr. Wolfson.

Just a note, while he does have an extensive background in rehabilitation, he is a Ph D, not an MD.

[The Duke]

This next part should be fun:

1. Do you have any evidence that Terri wasn't beaten?

Have fun with the irony of this exchange.

In the American legal system, guilt is assumed before innocence as a matter of course. What relevance does this have?

Its a shot at JJ, who spent half this thread asking me exactly this type of question, knowing full well it had no legal merit.  This is why I said I hope JJ appreciates the irony of the exchange.

[The Duke]

JJ has reverted to quantity over quality, as if extracting voluminous quotes from the Wolfson report makes up for the lack of quantity of sources.

[J. J.]

JJ has reverted to quantity over quality, as if extracting voluminous quotes from the Wolfson report makes up for the lack of quantity of sources.

Hardly.  I just prefer to use an objective source, agreed to by both parties, the court (and Jeb Bush, in this case), with good credentials, who has actually been present.

[The Duke]

Since its obvious that Terri Schiavo is going to die by court order, I don't see much point to continuing in this thread (I'm like a boxer, I've already retired from the thread once, so if people assume I'll be back, I don't totally blame them ) but I want to raise a point that has not been raised in this discussion.

The congressional resolution passed by the House (and I'm almost certain the joint version contains this as well) demands a de novo hearing.  This means that a new full hearing is held, and that the factual findings of the original courts are not accepted, be re-examined.

Do you who are so eager to kill Terri Schiavo, and so adamant that her due process rights have been followed (though not one person here has addressed the SUBSTANTIVE due process claims, or even acknowledged their existence) how do you defend the fact that the de novo proceeding to which Terri Schaivo's parents were entitled to never happenned?

I also hope that this incident will finally expose Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia for what they are.  They are not Federlists, but Confederalists, and their Constitutional theories are the Confederate theory of the Constiution.  They simply do not accept Federal supremacy, and all have at varying points authored insane opinions, thankfully in dissent more often than not, radicaly restraining the commerce caluse to limit that Federal govenrment and ruling against the supremacy doctrine every time they thought they could get away with it.  They are not Federalists, and neither are their supporters, they are Confederalists, and henceforth should not be treated as descendants of Hamilton and marshall, nor even conservatives in the trdition of Webster and Lincoln.  Their ancestors are John Calhoun and Jefferson Davis, who never were comfortable with Federal supremacy and like the Confederate trio always thought the Union was a compact of states before it was a unified nation (Despite the fact that only Texas, Florida, and California have any actual history as independent states.

[J. J.]

This next part should be fun:

1. Do you have any evidence that Terri wasn't beaten?

Have fun with the irony of this exchange.

In the American legal system, guilt is assumed before innocence as a matter of course. What relevance does this have?

Its a shot at JJ, who spent half this thread asking me exactly this type of question, knowing full well it had no legal merit.  This is why I said I hope JJ appreciates the irony of the exchange.

You obviously don't understand the question.

This is it, with word added:

Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as a competent adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

I am not asking you to prove anything.  I am asking, if at any point her adult life, prior to her collapse, did she ever talk to anyone about this subject? 

Because of the hearsay rule, that would be admissible.  If she talked to her parents, siblings, friends or co-workers and said something like, "I don't believe people should removed from life support," that would be enough (provided it was credible).  There isn't even that to day.  If there was credible evidence, I'd reverse my opinion.

Right now, there are three statements that she has expressed her opinion, hearsay, but admissible.  These three are all indicate that her wishes were to be removed.  Where is the evidence that she said something else?

[The Duke]

This question has already been addressed (addressing both whether the hearsay is admissible and whether I need to produce contrary evidence), and I am no longer in this thread.  Repeating it in bold face doesn't mean it hasn't been answered.

[J. J.]

Since its obvious that Terri Schiavo is going to die by court order, I don't see much point to continuing in this thread (I'm like a boxer, I've already retired from the thread once, so if people assume I'll be back, I don't totally blame them ) but I want to raise a point that has not been raised in this discussion.

The congressional resolution passed by the House (and I'm almost certain the joint version contains this as well) demands a de novo hearing.  This means that a new full hearing is held, and that the factual findings of the original courts are not accepted, be re-examined.

Do you who are so eager to kill Terri Schiavo, and so adamant that her due process rights have been followed (though not one person here has addressed the SUBSTANTIVE due process claims, or even acknowledged their existence) how do you defend the fact that the de novo proceeding to which Terri Schaivo's parents were entitled to never happenned?

Wrong again!  Here is what the text really says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note the word may.  While the suit will be heard de novo, that is not grounds for issuing a stay.  The courts, Federal District, 11 Circuit, and Supreme, after looking at the case, determined that there was not enough likelihood of success to issue the stay.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is interesting that you should cite the Calhoun and especially Davis, as the Legislature of one of the states governed by Davis voted against changing the law to require written intent to permit this type of action.  They chose not to (probably because of so many elderly people in that state only have verbal expression of their wishes).  The FL Supreme Court, in overturning "Terri's Law," cited the involvement of the Governor in the process as being unconstitutional; the proposed change had none of that.

Now, we don't have Federal supremacy, or judicial supremacy, or Congressional supremacy, or state supremecy.  We have a constitutional form of government, which all of the parties have taken an oath (as I have, BTW) to preserve and protect.

[J. J.]

This question has already been addressed (addressing both whether the hearsay is admissible and whether I need to produce contrary evidence), and I am no longer in this thread.  Repeating it in bold face doesn't mean it hasn't been answered.

The evidence rules regarding hearsay (which would cut both ways) has been addressed; the rule has been cited and posted indicating where it can be admitted.

Even here you have again failed to answer it.

I will ask it again:

Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as a competent adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

Let me ask this one:

Why are you avoiding answering the question?  Is it because you know that there isn't any evidence?  Is it because it would indicate that your ideology isn't what governs.

And finally, this one.

Is a lie by omission a sin?

[The Duke]

Sigh.  I said I'd stay out, and again I'm back in.

You linked (again) to a partial text (again) that (again) distorts the information contained in the document.  The bill says the courts amy act (they did) and if they did, it would be a de novo hearing (it was not).

The invokation of Jefferson Davis was not meant to be issue specific, but philosophical.  Philosophically, he believed the states were coequals to the Federal government.  This is essentially what Rehnquist et al believe, and its wrong.  It appears to be what you believe.  The Federal government is in fact the superior to the states, and its Constitution is superior over them.  Jefferson Davis did not believe this, the Conferderate trio do not believe in this, and it appears that you don't much believe in it either.  Thats fine, but don't call yourself a Federalist.  You are a Confederalist, who believes that the US is a compact of the states, not a nation with provincial divisions.

[The Duke]

This question has already been addressed (addressing both whether the hearsay is admissible and whether I need to produce contrary evidence), and I am no longer in this thread.  Repeating it in bold face doesn't mean it hasn't been answered.

The evidence rules regarding hearsay (which would cut both ways) has been addressed; the rule has been cited and posted indicating where it can be admitted.

Even here you have again failed to answer it.

I will ask it again:

Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as a competent adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

Let me ask this one:

Why are you avoiding answering the question?  Is it because you know that there isn't any evidence?  Is it because it would indicate that your ideology isn't what governs.

And finally, this one.

Is a lie by omission a sin?

I alrerady have answered the question.  Many times, actually.  my answer is that I do not intend to provide any evidence that Terri Schiavo said she wanted to live because I am under no obligation to given the law.  The assumption is that she wanted to live going into the case under our laws, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the state's protection of the life interest outweighs the liberty interest of the right to die (Cruzan).  The burden is not on me to prove anything, so I didn't.

I have also addressed your interpretation fo the hearsay exceptions, which I believe are dangerously broad and that your interpretation breaks with both the intent of the statute, its previous uses, and endangers the entire judicial process in cases like this.  Its a reckless interpretation, and I have provided examples from this case as to why a universal application of the statute to all hearsay testimony therin would turn the case into a kangaroo court.

I think its also worth pointing out that Michael Schiavo's version of events which was played in a 2003 interview with Larry King (rerun this week on CNN) are completely different from his brother's account of the story told this week on MSNBC (Countdown?  I can't remember exactly).  The stories are completely different, taking place in different ways at different times, and different ways, in front of different people.  And again, if Michael knew Terri wanted to die, why did the story not appear until AFTER the malpractice hearing in 1995, the verdict of which was based on the notion that Terri would live out her natural life span?  I do not accpet your intepretation fo the hearsay statute.  Boldface it all you want.

If you really demand some indication that Terri wanted to live, there is the now famous story that she moaned "I waaa" when her family's lawyer tolf her that if she said she wanted to live, this would all be over.  I'm sure it was just coincidental that she made that noise at that exact moment, though.  Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.

Since I'm not a Christian, I don't accept the idea of sin per se.

[J. J.]

Sigh.  I said I'd stay out, and again I'm back in.

You linked (again) to a partial text (again) that (again) distorts the information contained in the document.  The bill says the courts amy act (they did) and if they did, it would be a de novo hearing (it was not).

No, this for issuing the stay.  Here is the text again:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The law gave the Schindler's the right to raise the issue in Federal Court.  They went to the District Court, filed suit, and applied for the stay.  They were denied that stay.  They then appealed, the judge's decision not to grant the stay to the 11 Ciruit, and up to the Supreme Court.  All courts, after looking at the case, said that the judge was correct in not issuing the stay.  The case is still out there and could possibly be heard, and appealed.  The trial will have be considered de novo; this proceding was not the trial.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe that the states do have rights under our system, but I also believe that the Federal government, under that 14th Amendment that you seem to be so interested in, can create laws protecting groups (and possibly an individual, as in this case).  

They did, and the courts followed the law.  They made a correct determination that, under the rules under which they function, a stay was not required.  The courts have not ruled the statute unconstitutional, at this point, only said that the stay, or court order requiring the feeding tube to be re-inserted, should not be issued prior to the trial.