Weird law related stories:

 

 

I predict the Supreme Court will take a pass on the Terri Schiavo case.  One of the beauties of being on the court is that in most instances it can simply refuse to hear a case without giving any reason at all.  While the legislative maneuvering around the case crossed over into the grotesque a long time ago, I don't think the court will see any point in taking a shot at Congress when it does not have to.

The court tries to focus on cases with broad national implications and is usually unmoved by compelling personal tragedies.  It usually won't step in to correct individual specific injustices.  The Court does not want to become an error-correcting court, that is the function of the circuit courts of appeal. 

The Schiavo case is not really about the right to refuse medical treatment.  It is a settled question that competent adults have the right to refuse medical treatment even if that refusal will result in death.  Almost 15 years ago in Cruzan, the Court recognized that a person has a constitutionally protected right to refuse medical treatment.  However it went on that in a case where the patient is no longer competent, a state can require clear and convincing evidence that the patient would have wanted treatment withdrawn before allowing that to happen.  Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion.  The only dissenter still on the Court is Justice Stevens, who wrote that requiring clear and convincing evidence violated the right to refuse for patients who may have expressed a desire in ways that fell short of the clear and convincing standard.  The lesson from Cruzan is that a state generally cannot force an individual to accept treatment but it can regulate the process for determining whether the person has expressed that desire.

So with no conflict with precedent the only reason to take the case would be to tell Congress that it overstepped its authority when it interfered with the workings of the Florida judicial system when it directed the federal courts to re-decide the case.  That might be an issue if the legislation applied to anyone other than Terri Schiavo, but apparently it does not.  Also none of the lower courts dealt with the constitutionality of the Schiavo statute.

Take it from me, the Court will decide that the most prudent decision is deciding not to decide.

 

And on a related note here is a link to a downloadable living will and health care power of attorney.

I know spring is coming when I see bees buzzing around new blooms, the robins show up at the bird feeder, and the sure fire sign -- North Carolina "runs out" of money to pay court appointed attorneys:

 

I puts "runs out" in quotes, because the government never really runs out of money the way ordinary people do, meaning there is no money left.  It is a fiction like the federal government "shutdown" of about 10 years ago.

 

What will really happen is the courts continue to appoint attorneys and expect them to work, creating a liability for next year's budget.  The first few million for next year's budget goes to pay left over amounts due from the past year.

You're the boss, Chairman, take it away:

 

Strangers on my flight.

This is sad.  I guess you can't pawn a kid.

Ed Bumgardner has assembled a soundtrack for those who dream of "takin' it to the Man" one day.

 

 

The saga of Fred Sink, Davidson County and a toilet float ball runs on.

Hoggard and the human side of bankruptcy reform.

 

 

When the government gives away land and millions to a corporation, it is an investment.  When a county handyman installs a toilet in a man's home, it is a felony.

 

You can get your own shirt here.  Wear it to court at your own risk.