6. What I can't figure out is why they didn't change
the law in some way that would have changed the outcome in the courts. They could have if that was what they wanted to accomplish. They could have changed the law so that the whole family would get a say in making these kinds of decisions. They could have required the judge to admit a broader range of expert testimony -- dropped some of the restrictions about expert testimony -- in such cases. There were so many things they could have done. I wonder if they failed on purpose.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
