I read on the Internet that the 11th Circut court denied to reattach Terri's feeding tube. The ruling was split 2-1. I'm unsurprised by the judges' exceptionally narrow interpretation of both the private law's intent and Terri's constitutional rights. The federal judges are just as obsessed by procedural law to the point that it's become a cargo cult- to defy it risk breaking the taboo. Frankly I really can't fathom the judges' attitude towards Terri's rights. The private law is pretty explicit that the Congress ordered a recours de cassation a de novo trial in the law's jargon. A de novo trial is a hearing that starts the case all over and the lawyers reargue to verify if original judge's decision(Greer)was the correct one.
Instead the judges narrowly interpreted the law in bad faith. In fact the subsequent rulings were most likely illegal by reason of prevarication. Interestingly, to prevaricate in English means speak or act evasively hiding the truth. In Catalan, the verb means to delibrately neglect one's duties toward the position that he holds. It also means to deviate someone from his duties.
In the judicial context, pervaricate means to write sentences or rulings that the judge knows is false but submits it anyways. I'm accusing the judges of illegal conduct because they knew full well that their rulings were false.
How else can any reasonable person explain the first federal judge's astonishing lack of curiosity for such basic question as to whether or not Terri had an MRI or PET scans; whether Greer ever visited her and about Schiavo's conflict of interest. I accuse the Court of appeal similary. They showed no skepticism towards the first judge's ruling and excessive deference to an ex-colleague.
That alone should've triggered some reservations by the panel. It's quite clear to me as a foreigner that the judges and their political allies pretty much want Terri dead. However, Terri's gone from an embarassing tragedy to a dangerous nuisance who threatens to undermine the judicial usurpation of legislative perogatives and advancement of controversal political platforms. I'm disgusted that these same judges would never, ever blow off a death row inmate or an Al Qu'ida detainee like Terri. Judge Wilson is the honorable exception. He's the only judge who wasn't awed by the superficial reasonabolity of past judgements nor cowed by procedural fetishism nor didn't defer fawningly toward his predecessors' good faith .
No es mor per una mentida.
Dan Brown ha descuidat aquest llició moral del communisme.
Una mentida no pot durar 2 mil lenis per que eventualment tothom es donarà compte que l'iderari I la realitat no congruen. Pitjor, el primer eigieix que la realitat es conforma a el. I quan la segona no ajupa, hi ha tota mena de pogroms i violència amb molta sang I fetge. També alguns dels adherents més leals i feverosos es desil lusionaran del ideari doncs el denunciaran per fals profet etc. Una societat o civilització que s'ergeix d'una mentida no sols es inviable ans es lletja.
Només mirem els 'productes' culturals del communisme. ¿No es lleig- l'art, la literatur els arts plastics, dramatics etc? ¿I l'arquitectura? Ni parlem. Doncs, quan el Vaticà intervinguí finalement només volia recordar a la gent que Dan Brown no es historiador per que es obví només mirant els hospitals, escoles, l'esglesies i els arts que el christanisme no es basa pas enuna mentida. Ademés, l'anti-cristanisme del Brown es fastigós i francament cansa de llegir els mateixos clixes desde fa segles. No dubto que la pelí de la novel la es trobarà com a comèdia no-volguda que un thriller religiós seriós.