Jump to content

Talk:Palm Sunday Compromise

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Notes to self:

[edit]

11th Cir. TRO denial: --This is the corrected order should be referenced, not the original 32 page order: 31 pages: PDF file (March 23, 2005) http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511556.pdf (Before Carnes, Hull, and Wilson)

11th Cir. TRO denial: (Court allowed Schindlers to file amended complain, adding 4 more counts, and a 2nd amended complain, adding a 5th count -Schindlers filed a 2nd motion for emergency TRO) 25 pages (March 25, 2005) PDF file: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511628.pdf (Before Carnes, Hull, and Wilson) Alt: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32505opn11.pdf

11th Cir. Rehearing denial: (Before Carnes, Hull, and Wilson) 1 page PDF file - Case No. 05-11628 (March 30, 2005) http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/033005%2011th%20Cir%20Rehearing%20Denial%202.pdf

11th Cir. En Banc Rehearing denial: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511628reh2.pdf Alt: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/33005ca11rhrng2.pdf 30 pages PDF file - March 25, 2005 --Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, ANDERSON, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES, BARKETT, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON, and PRYOR,* Circuit Judges.

  • * Judge William H. Pryor Jr. did not participate in the consideration of the Petition because he is recovering from surgery performed on Monday, 28 March 2005.

Questions: Where is that eight (8) page order, "ON PETITION FOR EXPEDITED REHEARING EN BANC" (Opinion March 23, 2005)? Judge TJOFLAT makes a good dissent, citing the "All Writs Act," 28 U.S.C. section 1651(a). I snagged this off the Internet somehwere, but it is not there now. Time to go looknig for it.

Motion before Supreme Court of the United States (seeking stay of 11th Cir. Ct. Appeals) 44 pages PDF file -March 23, 3005 http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32305scotusmot.pdf

One US Supreme Ct denial: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04a825.htm (Undated; HTML file) 1 page

Another US Supreme Ct denial: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04a844.htm (Undeated; HTML file) 1 page

Move to Government involvment page?

[edit]

Should this page be integrated into the Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case article? I can see good reasons to keep this separate, but some of the info is redundant, so it seemed we should ask.--ghost 14:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. I think that the Palm Sunday Compromise, having been "federal," is separate and distince from the "state" Terri's Law; thus, I would link the two together -that is, put links to each on the other page, --yet, keep them separate. Also, if one page has links on it that seem good for the other page, of course, it's OK to have "redundant" information. Reasoning: A person may only visit one page or the other, but the links --and info0, should be available. That's what I think.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contrast of administration's handling of Red Lake High School massacre

[edit]

I would like some input. In the week following the signing of the Compromise, the administration was harshly criticized for it's appearent lack of response to the tradegy in MN the same day. I was told by other editors that mention of this controversy, even when documented, was inappropriate on the Red Lake High School massacre and Terri Schiavo pages. So, is this the proper place? This controversy is a historical fact, no matter how uncomfortable, and I don't want us as a community to forget something that creates an important backdrop. Thoughts?--ghost 14:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it is a minor point, but the fact it (controversy / dispute) happened, and can be documented, makes it relevent. As long as there is not a preponderance of Pro Bush (or Anti-Bush) "historical facts," then mention of this is not going to shift the whole page to a POV article. The only argument against mention of the Red Lake situation is the fact that it may not be noteworthy enough, but I think that is is OK to mention, because it only takes up like one line or so, and thus its worth outweighs the page space it takes up.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 05:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Un-needed, deleted. bd2412 T 13:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of quorum

[edit]

Isn't any bill "passed" without a quorum in the Senate not a law at all? 71.203.209.0 (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to ask about the same thing, IANAL, but maybe the signing of the bill is considered to correct the procedural defects? That seems a bit shaky to me. More generally, what was the political environment around the event? Did the other senators know that this was planned? Weren't objections raised against the validity of the vote? Was the lack of quorum related to the "compromise" (and in what sense was the bill a compromise)? I think the article could benefit from some clarifying information. 98.207.93.138 (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tags removed

[edit]

This article contained three tags (NPOV and OR), but I did not find any reference on the talk page, so I removed them. The tags were added by 67.42.94.222 on 25 march 2011:

POV-title|date=March 2011
In section Criticisms:
Original research|date=September 2007
POV|date=November 2010

81.165.78.108 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Palm Sunday Compromise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palm_Sunday_Compromise&oldid=1204508319"