New Development in Schiavo Case...And I'm Puzzled
Joe Gandelman
If you clicked on the link below you read our long post and roundup on the Terri Schiavo case. Now there's a new development which brings Congress, the President and the courts into the case even more:
President Bush is changing his schedule to return to the White House on Sunday to be in place to sign emergency legislation that would shift the case of a brain-damaged Florida woman to federal courts, the White House said Saturday.
"Everyone recognizes that time is important here," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "This is about defending life."
After Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed on Friday, members of Congress worked out a deal to pass legislation to allow federal courts to decide the 41-year-old woman's fate and in the hopes of supporters of the woman's parents restore the tube that was keeping her alive.
The House and Senate hoped to act on the legislation Sunday, so Bush decided he needed to be in Washington so he could immediately sign the bill, McClellan said.
"The president intends to sign legislation as quickly as possible once it is passed," McClellan said.
During previous travels, Bush has had legislation flown to him overnight by military plane for his signature. But in this case, McClellan said that the fact that a woman's life is at stake made it necessary for him to travel to the bill.
"Terri Schiavo's feeding tube has been removed and we stand with … all those who are working to defend her life," he said.
Bush was spending the weekend at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
But I'm puzzled. I thought the President and GOPers didn't like activist judges and were for smaller government. It seems here they're moving this case to ensure activist judges handle it and are taking powers away from state courts and handing it over to the federal government. Do conservative principles matter, or are they only to be affirmed during election time? Just a thought. Your comments are welcome (and before we get angry comments read our long post linked below).
UPDATE: Great Minds Think Alike Dept: Bull Moose (a blog linked to the DLC) has the same reaction.All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- The Schiavo Case
- New Development in Schiavo Case...And I'm Puzzled
- The Courage of their Convictions...
- A Letter From A Terri Schiavo Supporter
- Terri Schiavo Re-Revisited
- Terry Schiavo
Principles no longer matter in US politics, only winning. Otherwise, how would the party that was known for fiscal discipline now become the party that has expanded spending beyond all precedent?
This doesn't only apply to conservatives, but the liberal side of the spectrum can't herd the cats well enough to be effective.
You're not understanding the problem conservatives have with activist judges: it is when judges thwart the constitutionally expressed will of the people that the right goes ballistic, not when judges are enforcing constitutionally enacted law. What the GOP has done (with a lot of bi-partisan support, it should be noted) is pass a law (well, strictly speaking, they haven't passed it yet, but its as sure a thing as you can get in politics) which the President will then sign into law.
As the whole point of the exercise is to bring this before the Federal courts, to such courts it will go. The hope of the supporters of Terri Schiavo is that it will be determined that she is not in a persistent vegetative state and thus removing her feeding tube will be forbidden; then work can be done on getting Michael Schiavo to leave the scene. End of story, last we hear of it.
If, however, the Federal courts rule as the Florida judge has ruled, that will be the end of it as far as this case goes; a lot of Terri supporters will be beside themselves with anger, but for conservatives it will at least have been done in accordance with our best principles, even if the result is heartily disagreed with.
I've written on my blog that we've become a nation of children always looking for the courts to make the whole decision for us; what I view the Terri Schiavo case as is an opportunity to start reversing this proces. We, the people of the United States, make the rules - the judges enforce them per our direction; most emphatically NOT the other way around. All elements of American politics must be brought to bear on contentious issues; in this case, the legislative, executive and judicial will all have their say in the proper execution of the American "checks and balances" form of government.
So true. The ones the left-wing doesn't like are labeled "radical right extremists."
Principles no longer matter in US politics, only winning.
Funny thing is, I remember conservatives bemoaning that constantly in the 1980s and 1990s. Leading me increasingly to wonder if there ever was this mythical time when it was really all that different from now.
No. The whole point is to circumvent a process that is already in place.
"If, however, the Federal courts rule as the Florida judge has ruled, that will be the end of it as far as this case goes."
Doubt it. Just watch.
You may not like Michael Schiavo. In fact, I think he wants his wife dead because, I think, she would talk about how she came to be in this state if she were to remain alive.
But what I think doesn't matter. The lack of written instructions from Terri place the responsibility for her care and decisions relating to it on her husband. If we take that right away from him (and possibly her, because we have no idea how she feels) then we take away a right that husbands and wives have always had with each other - the right to make decisions regarding the care of their spouses. That right is something we've had with spouses for many, many years. And if you take it away because of this one case (that happens to have made the news) and, quite frankly, is being used as a pet issue on both sides, then you have a little problem on your hands.
In the absence of a written directive, Dean and Mark, what should happen to your PVS wifes/spouses should you wish to pull the plug? If someone else says they'll take care of them should the decision be taken away from you?
I know no one is thinking of this logically. It's become about emotion. It's also become an issue I guarantee will come up in the next election (someone will accuse someone else of not supporting the new law, or whatever, and is therefore supporting killing defenseless humans.)
Think about this rationally, and realize that this is one case that you may not agree with. Then think about what happens if the rules about spouses making decisions are changed to accommodate it. Think about how that affects your relationship with your husband/wife - because it absolutely does.
I'm ashamed to have voted for him.
For all of those against Mr. Schavio, how far are you willing to take this Democracy Destruction to get your way? You're acting no better than the ACLU and other extremist left-wing groups. Where are your scrupples? Out the window with what the FF's wanted in the Constitution?!?
I guess activism is fine as long as you agree with it, which is the death of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I'm ashamed of you all...
A local judge made a decision, probably a bad one, and the local appeals judges back him up, and now the feds have questions. That's the beauty of a federal system. Not about conservatism or liberalism.
But that's just it. Doctors and courts and just about everyone that matters have ruled she IS in a PVS. Just because she moves and mumbles at balloons does NOT mean she has any awareness of her surroundings.
In your "professional medical opinion," after looking at videos made by family members and others who have an interest in proving she is not, you may not think it's the case, but it is.
Why would doctors, knowing it would mean her death, say that she is in a PVS when she isn't?
I think this meddling from DC is major mistake. Alas a friend of mine Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner is behind the House bill.
People can always come up with a nice debating argument to say "AHA! I proved my point!" but the bottom line is that an activist judge is apparently someone who rules on an issue X person doesn't like, but otherwise there's nothing wrong with an activist judge. And smaller government is what you want and insist upon -- unless of course you want to use your power to expand the powers of the federal government to stop something you don't want on a state level. I tell my friends that I will never join either of the political parties again (I have belonged to both) and each day I throw my shoulder out of joing for patting myself on my back because of my decision.
This is a nice exercise in power politics in a case that truly is murky but the solution they're opting for is to use the Fed Med to solve it. These are very thoughtful comments and I salute them and if you choose to think you have proven your point, do go ahead and think so. But from my modest viewpoint not belonging to either party and have no vested mental or activist interest in how it turns out: longtime principles are being jettisoned to respond to an issue, the hunt is on for an activist judge who can rule the way one side wants it to rule, and smaller government and state powers are being trumped by passing a law to bring in the feds. I hear Barry and Ronald moaning.
Please read this NRO article which details the incompleteness of the original diagnosis.
There are more than a few neurosurgeons, all of them with better qualifications than the doctor who made the original diagnosis, who have signed affadavits saying that the original incomplete testing done to certify the diagnosis of PVS would not be enough to substantiate such.
Judge Greer has refused to even consider their testimony, let alone consider it.
To the best of my knowledge, Michael Schiavo has refused further neurological testing for years, even when it was offered pro bono.
There are significant reasons to question the original 'finding of fact', and if the Florida courts have refused to do that, then the federal courts *should* step in.
BTW, before you go calling conservatives 'hypocrites' on this issue, remember, some of us have this quaint, old-fashioned belief that life is sacred... and you know, what we're doing here is perfectly consistent with that.
But that's an argument that could go all year.
OTOH, I just wish everybody who is going "SHE'S BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH PVS!" would actually, you know, realize that the original diagnosis ain't exactly as ironclad as Mr. Schiavo and Judge Greer would wish.
Of course. The basis of the Florida Supreme Court's ruling was that a Florida statute violated the separation of powers. There is no "separation of powers" between the federal and state governments. Even if the issue were the same, it's not as though the U.S. Supreme Court has never overruled the Florida Supreme Court or anything. Have you already forgotten about President Gore?
Hogwash. There is no evidence a constitutional amendment is needed. You simply made that up.
What the hell are you talking about? There is nothing "undemocratic" about democratically elected Congressmen passing laws to implement the will of the people. Isn't that their job?
Oh yes, I almost forgot the Founding Fathers. My copy of the Constitution doesn't have a "when is that bitch going to die" Amendment, but I suppose yours does.
No one in his right mind opposes "activism." The objection is to judicial activism, where judges usurp the law-making functions of legislators. Legislators, including Congressmen, are supposed to be activist.
You are right to be ashamed.
My biggest problem with this case is that I believe that the state should never force anyone to be starved to death. Or to die of dehydration. This is, by any measure, cruel and unusual.
Oregon has laws that allow death with dignity. Anyone who approves of the idea of a living will might also want Oregnon's laws applied nationwide.
But if I could have had the opportunity of standing at this unfortunate woman's bedside and witness her struggles to stay alive and to communicate with her own parents, then I'm sure I would have been tempted to shoot dead anyone who came into that room for purposes of killing her.
Supporting abortion, as I do, is one thing. Supporting euthanasia of seriously sick adults is something entirely different.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
They shouldn't. Putting it in a federal court shouldn't change the law involved. Any decent federal judge should apply Florida law in this case. That's what happens when other state issues are removed to federal court for various reasons. State law continues to apply. [Of course, there are exceptions, but that's the general rule. I don't know if the bill before Congress addresses choice of law, but if it does, that's just a further usurpation of state power by the feds.] Furthermore, any decent federal judge should be highly reluctant to conclude that state courts misinterpretted state law, because there is a strong (and eminently reasonable) presumption that state judges are better able to interpret state law than federal judges.
But Congress is trying to overrule this because they don't like the result that the state courts reached. It's a monstrous violation of the principles of federalism, and I have grave doubts as to whether Congress truly has the power, under the Constitution, to do this. That will be a question that the U.S. Supreme Court may have to decide.
Even if you agree with the ultimate aim of keeping Terri Schiavo alive, all Americans should be seriously disturbed by Congress's willingness to manipulate the state judicial process in this way. It's very dangerous territority.
It bothers me that so many folks have such strong opinions on this, yet remain so woefully misinformed.
Terri Schaivo is not "brain dead". She is "brain damaged". There is serious conflict among very qualified medical professionals as to her PVS status. The largest argument being posed by those who favor this legislation is that the diagnosis done by the doctors for Judge Greer did not sufficiently examine Terri (for instance, they did not perform the minimally-required tests nor did they spend near as much time with her as they should have).
The courts who upheld Judge Greer's decision never reviewed his disputed finding of fact. They reviewed the legality of his actions, given that his findin of fact was accurate. In fact, the requirements necessary to have a finding of fact reviewed are norealyh impossible to meet.
The legislation currently being debated in Congress would not finalize the matter. It would simply place the case before a Federal court for a new hearing. They would start from square one and would determine what Terri's medical condition actually is and whether or not her wish to die clearly existed.
Just curious.
Xlrq, I've never discribed Mrs. Schavio as a 'bitch' though I do find it most telling that you describe your own pet 'project' as such.
Personally, I think she should be given into the custody of her parents, however that doesn't mean I suggest or support in any way violating the spirit that this nation was founded on. We are not ruled by mob justice, and from the amount of shit coming out of your mouth, and others like you, I don't want anything to do with your 'side'.
Oh, and just in case you forgot High School Government...
There is no mention in the Constitution or it's Ammendments that the Federal Government shall have the right to make laws concerning one single case in a state. Quite specifically, it states that any rights NOT grated to the Federal branch, or denied to the states shall remain with the states.
It also states quite clearly that Congress has the right to reign in SCOTUS but within a specific framework. Mob law isn't covered, nor should you be advocating it for it will come back to bite you in the ass, along with every other American.
What requires waiting until the last possible minute and forcing an emergency session?
Political grandstanding, that is all.
Richard Bennett: I forgot about the Supreme Court's rejection of the case, but it makes sense since there's no constitutional issue.
Hard cases make bad law. We'll see how this plays out.
When is enough enough?
If Congress successfully intervenes and forces the matters into the federal courts, damage will be done to federalism, states' rights, the fourteenth amendment, and the sanctity of marriage.
That's right, the fundamental issue here is whether a husband or wife is entitled to make medical decisions for a spouse. If this long-standing principle is overturned, it will be a greater blow to the institution of marriage than all the homosexual marriages in Massachusetts, San Francisco, and Paris. And all in the name of conservatism.
What a disgrace.
I'm only speculating, but I suppose Michael Schiavo is "so determined" to remove the feeding tube because it is what he believes Terri would want him to do. I'm sure if he had a choice, he'd choose a quicker, less painful, and more humane way to end her suffering, but the law does not allow him that option. So for the last fifteen years, he has pursued the only legal option he's had to fulfill his wife's wishes.
Like many people, my parents would not want to be kept alive in circumstances similar to those of Terri Schiavo. If a situation like that should ever strike them, I only hope that I'll have the courage and strength of character required to let them go gracefully.
Not only are you ignorant of the constitutional basics, you also don't know better than to argue the Constitution with someone whose forgotten more of it than you'll probably ever know yourself. If you knew the basics, you wouldn't quote Article III and Amendments 9 and 10, none of which confer any powers on Congress to do anything at all. Of course those provisions don't empower Congress to get involved here!
I was half tempted to tell you where in the Constitution to look to see what Congress is and isn't empowered to do, but this has gotten to be too much fun. I'd rather wait and see what irrelevant laws you dredge up next.
But, according to Michael Schiavo, Terri did not want to be kept alive like that. So, in effect, it's Terri's wish to have that tube removed. When two people get married, the husband or wife gets to make those decisions. Not the mother, father, sisters, brothers or Federal government.
The harm in keeping Terri alive is that Terri didn't want it, according to Michael. And, if you question the motives of Michael Schiavo, which I have by the way, you still set a terrible precedent, because you're taking away the right of a spouses to make decisions for each other.
Allowing this to happen would be "legislative activism" if we want to put a label on it,
And, by the way, the Republicans are doing this to shore up their election prospects.
Let me ask you a question. ScenarioWho do you want to make the decision - your wife, with whom you discussed, but did not write down, your decision, or your parents, who cannot let you go and want to keep you alive based on a false hope that you may get better??
Tell me.
That said: I would have to agree that I'm not comfortable with the President and Congress getting involved here--except that I would say it really is the President and the Congress and not just the President. And actually, given that the Florida courts have been in disagreement with the Florida legislature and Governor here, I'm not even sure I can get worked up over who's right or wrong in a legalistic sense anymore.
I have a question for those who want to continue feeding Terri Schiavo: do you feel that Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong?
Since I believe that Mr. Schiavo should allow his long-estranged wife into the arms of the family that has offered to care for her for life free and clear, and go ahead and marry that other woman he's living with and has children with, I'll answer this:
Aside from the quibbles where we know Darwin got some specifics wrong, I fully believe in Darwinian evolution. Also I'm an atheist.
Any other questions?
And Xrlqasd2134-0, whovever you are, the question about Darwin was intended to separate people of blind faith from the rest of us, not to justify the law that says that spouses make medical decisions for each other. The basis of that doctrine is so deeply embedded in our traditions it hardly needs justifying.
To be honest I've got a lot of thing I'm annoyed with Bush over, but this certainly isn't one of them.
Terri Schiavo has provided no written evidence that she wished to be put to death in the event of incapacitation. Therefore, the artificial feeding system which has sustained her for the past 15 years should be continued, until she either recovers or dies a natural death not induced by starvation or dehydration.
This unfortunate woman's husband seems more intent on collecting his wife's insurance benefits than on any other consideration. The state of Florida ought to annul their marriage immediately and put Terri under the care of someone who actually loves her.
I say again. Regardless of the laws of Florida, or of the United States; regardless of the relationships between the states and the federal government; regardless of any and all standard operating procedures. Starvation or dehydration of this woman would be a vile act from which the reputations of the perpetrator or perpetrators -- be they the highest officials of this land -- would never recover.
If nothing else happens here, and Terri's life support system is not restored, then I think it is the obligation of the governor of Florida to send a state police unit into that hospital, along with a police physician, take that action themselves, and then guard this poor woman's life and expel her "husband" from the premises. If I were that governor, that is exactly what I would do. Even if the rest of the bastards involved in this dreadful case impeached me and all the courts upheld my removal from office.
Because there are occasions on which justice, the justice that is owed a helpless woman, trumps all other considerations.
Does any or all this contradict anything else I have ever written in my commentaries on Dean's World? Maybe. Probably. But I don't give a damn. I know what is right and what is wrong. And that's what counts.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Let's phrase it this way:
You and your wife decide together that you do want to be kept alive in a body that does not function. You don't mind laying in a bed currently unaware of what's around you and having a tube in your stomach to feed you. You don't don't mind nurses and nurse's aids wiping your ass every day because being brain damaged is not being dead and there may be a treatment one day. Your estranged spouse who already has another lover, stands to receive a large amount of cash if you die, and who clearly is not emotionally tied to your best interests decides to lie and say that you didn't want to live. Should they be allowed to have you killed?
Mr Schiavo is not saying that he's making a legally entitled medical decision on her behalf. If he was, I could understand your position. But he's claiming that these were her wishes, a claim that is under dispute. Mr. Schiavo is simply not a credible witness.
BK
OK, so maybe I butchered the last bit of the quote to make it say what you meant rather than what you actually said. Never mind that. To the extent that the question was intended to "separate people of blind faith from the rest of us," I was 99% sure that that was what exactly you meant, but rather than immediately branding you as a bigot I opted instead to give you the benefit of the doubt. Now that you've gone and removed that doubt, it's up to you to either apologize for your anti-religion bigotry, or somehow explain why it isn't bigotry after all.
Up until now, I had never hear anyone on either side of the issue argue that it either is OK to starve Terri Schiavo to death because she evolved from homo erectus millions of years ago, or that it is not OK to do so because God created Adam, Eve and/or Steve in six days a mere 6,000 years ago. The connection between the two issues, if any, is less than obvious, so please do enlighten us all. While you're at it, perhaps you could come up with a brief list of other issues on which people of faith are also unqualified to hold and/or express opinions.
But if you believe in miracles, and more than that believe that miracles are a routine part of everyday life, then you have no problem believing she will improve. So I think religious faith, of a certain kind, is a key factor in this case.
For me it's simply a matter of the government's eagerness to get involved in private family matters. I'm not for that sort of thing, generally, but apparently you are.
But life is the one and only thing Terri Schiavo has left to her poor existence in what is left of her poor body. And I would allow nobody at all to take that away from her under any circumstance.
And I certainly do not think she said any such thing to the man, her husband, who is now trying to move the courts into killing Terri so he can apparently claim the insurance policy on her life.
So this is one time I come down four-square on the side of the jesus and mary folks, if that's what it takes.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
More likely, it's about who is considered family. The parents (yes), or the guy who hasn't been her husband except on paper for years (no).
BK
One last thing: spare us the tired, non-argument about not wanting government to get involved in private family matters. That question was settled the instant that Judge Greer took jurisdiction of the case. Now the only honest disagreement is over which side of the private family matter government ought to take, not whether it should get involved at all. [Or are you seriously suggesting that Judge Greer vacate his own decision, get the government out of the issue altogether, and Michael Schiavo and the Schindler family go mano a mano instead? Come to think of it, maybe that's not such a bad idea after all...]
Every dark cloud has a silver lining, so the loss of the principle of federalism must have an upside somewhere.