Comments on: 11th Circuit Rejects Schindlers’ Appeal

By: Patterico

Patterico — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:06:43 +0000

I think there is more language in the Harvey case after the part you quote that makes it support the court’s position.

On the issue of “state action” I think you’re right. On the issue of the judge being a state actor, I don’t think so.

By: Christopher Cross

Christopher Cross — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:49:16 +0000

I can’t get the PDF to load up–but does it address whether the law enforcement agents that are enforcing the court’s order constitute state actors?

I.E.–by preventing people from getting to Schiavo to administer food/water/feeding tube, aren’t they in a somewhat different position than is Greer insofar as being a state actor is concerned?

Aren’t they closer to the deprivation such that a claim might be valid?

By: Matto Ichiban

Matto Ichiban — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:07:59 +0000

I think there is more language in the Harvey case after the part you quote that makes it support the court’s position. Sorry I don’t have time to look it up right now, but I thought I would point the other intrepid law student commenters (with lexis access) in that direction.

By: Ladainian

Ladainian — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:59:22 +0000

Just when you thought you heard it all… Some lady interviewed on the radio was advocating that everyone go out and do a living will, giving decision rights to their children and parents, leaving their spouse out.

So what this one person learns from this is all husbands are jerks!

By: Tom Maguire

Tom Maguire — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:31:08 +0000

On a side note, you will be intrigued by this catch-up Michael-basher front paged on the Saturday Times.

By: Tom Maguire

Tom Maguire — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:11:30 +0000

As best I follow that, if I as an individual have a certain right not available to the state (insert bad example - I have the right to engage in racial or religious discrimination when selecting a marriage partner), I can still rely on the state to help me enforce that right, even though the state lacks it.

As I understood it in this case, the issue arose with the religious observance question. The state can not deny Ms. Schiavo her right to observe. However, her guardian can choose, on her behalf, not to be observant. And a court order upholding that does not represent religious discrimination by the state.

Well, I am not an attorney (was it *that* obvious?)

Have a great weekend.

By: Patterico's Pontifications » A Legal Argument Why the Federal Courts Should Have Granted the Schiavo Injunction

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

[...] here.) The panel decision of the 11th Circuit affirming the denial of the injunction. (Here is my initial post on that decision.) The 11th Circuit̵ [...]