Posted on 04/13/2005 8:21:32 PM PDT by cyncooper
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay apologized Wednesday for using overheated rhetoric on the day Terri Schiavo died, but refused to say whether he supports impeachment of the judges who ruled in her case.
~snip~
At a crowded news conference in his Capitol office, DeLay addressed remarks he made in the hours after the brain-damaged Florida woman died on March 31. "I said something in an inartful way and I shouldn't have said it that way and I apologize for saying it that way," DeLay told reporters.
~snip~
DeLay seemed at pains to soften, if slightly, his rhetoric of March 31, when Schiavo died despite an extraordinary political and legal effort to save her life.
"I believe in an independent judiciary. I repeat, of course I believe in an independent judiciary," DeLay said.
At the same time, he added, the Constitution gives Congress power to oversee the courts.
"We set up the courts. We can unset the courts. We have the power of the purse," DeLay said.
Asked whether he favors impeachment for any of the judges in the Schiavo case, he did not answer directly.
Instead, he referred reporters to an earlier request he made to the House Judiciary Committee to look into "judicial activism" and Schiavo's case in particular.
~snip~
(Excerpt) Read more at story.news.yahoo.com ...
oops, #756
Truer words were never spoken.
Thank you. I wonder if some new information in the future might make you think twice about that? I guess we will have to wait and see.
Continue to harden your heart, then. No one can stop you.
If this case can't touch your emotions, nothing ever will.
I know, I saw it.
Every post I make to you is addressed to the lurkers who are reading our words. You hide behind your piousness. Sanctimony. Its been suggested that your contribution is counterproductive yet you continue in that vain. That leads me to consider you more an active disruptor rather than a zealot.
Please know that I have no problem with you voicing your opinion. But also know that most Freepers agree with EV. You can call us all the names you want but in the end most of us are pro-life, from conception to natural birth. That is just the way FR is and is spelled out quite nicely in the mission statement. I only write this to you because I see the usual suspects have come out to harass EV, but there are many more of us than that small crowd.
I welcome any new information. I wonder how conclusive any autopy results will be?
I'm saying that it doesn't take a lawyer to understand that the Constitution in clear and unmistakable language precludes the government or an individual from taking the life of a citizen short of a conviction of a capital crime.
In fact, it would seem that most attorneys now have had their minds so clouded by petty legalisms that it seems to preclude them from understanding such a basic fact.
Proverbally, our legal minds would seem to have perfected straining our gnats while swallowing camels.
I'm saying that it doesn't take a lawyer to understand that the Constitution in clear and unmistakable language precludes the government or an individual from taking the life of a citizen short of a conviction of a capital crime.
In fact, it would seem that most attorneys now have had their minds so clouded by petty legalisms that it seems to preclude them from understanding such a basic fact.
Proverbally, our legal minds would seem to have perfected straining out gnats while swallowing camels.
I make a distinction between the Schindlers actions which were non-political and totally personal and those of the "activists" who got involved for several reasons including opportunism. Unwise as I believe the Schindlers actions were they were entirely personal from what I can see. However, those who claim to be conservatives are absolutely sacrificing principle for expediency. There is no question about it. Successful prosecution of the Schindler's case would lead to a massive new federal involvement in state affairs and personal affairs which have always been pretty much outside federal control. And it would led to a massive new push for socialized medicine since keeping the nearly alive going is among the most expensive of medical procedures.
Removal of artificial means of life support is as far from a "judicial killing" as you can get. Terri was so far gone even the removal of the tube made no significanct difference for almost two weeks. There was no true "life" there any more than the twitches of a dead person means they are alive.
It amazes me how the fanatics can be unaware that this case is far from unusual medically or legally. Can they really be ignorant of the fact that any given day hundreds of decisions like this are made and that there may be thousands of cases lying unaware in hospital beds trapped in a gruesome twilight zone between life and death?
I've made my case on EVie and I stand by it. What 'most FReepers' do or don't is of no regard to me, and EVie, intentionally, brings the harassment upon himself. He does this to cause and to perpetuate division. His best tools are the ones who believe him genus and emotional support his faux pious-city.
While I appreciate the compliment of being compared to one of the most perceptive observers of evil I must modestly say that my contributions to sanity do not match George's.
And nothing could be more Orwellian than the claim that what was left of TS was "life."
I was thinking about what sorts of law changes might have an impact. Just brainstorming, not making any value judgements here.
There could be a modification of civil procedure where the gravaman of the action is determination of an incapacitated wishes. A requirement for a more detailed defense of finding intent to the standard of "clear and convincing," for example. The defense of the conclusion could be required to be phrased in the same terms as the legal standard.
In Westinghouse Elect. Corp., Inc. v. Bay County Energy Systems, Inc., 590 So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court stated: Clear and convincing evidence requires that the evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the testimony must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established [Cboldt comment: and therefore also the falsity or inaccuracy of contrary testimony or evidence].Although this standard of proof may be met where the evidence is in conflict, In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So. 2d 258, 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), approved, 568 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990), it seems to preclude evidence that is ambiguous.
Cited in an article relating to a completely different matter <--
There could be mandatory appellate review. There could be review of the language of Living Wills, and a requirement for evidence that teh signer was not critically confused (the Georgia Model form can easily be critically confusing, a person might check of the box that says "including food and water", which has the legal effect of withholding food and water).
There could be a statutory right of appeal to a federal court. There could be a statutory requirement for the appellate court to disregard all finding of fact by the lower court, and arrive at its own finding of fact based on the evidence in the record (I am not advocating this, I think it makes the process messy), and admitting new evidence.
The legal standard for overturning on appeal could be set as "preponderance," instead of "clearly erroneous." Again, just for this narrow class of case. If society does indeed value life, then the burden to choose and enforce one's own death can be reasonably set very high.
There is no need for that as long as courts do not have to fear mob rule and attacks by fanatics. So far there is nothing to complain about wrt their ability to adjudicate these cases except that it takes too long when litigation is involved.
As has been said many times there have been thousands and thousands of cases providing a firm body of case law and precedent for their decisions. It really is not difficult in the vast majority of them including this one.
Only the bizarre attacks of the Schindlers and their followers on just about everyone made this case unusual.
Not when the BEST result is to lie in a bed consuming millions of dollars worth of medical care each year. I am not that selfish.
But there is a big difference between that (TS's situation) and those which have some chance of recovery.
You have no right to judge the motivations of those who bothered to try and help the Schindler family, since all you did was sit on your *ss and type words against them.
Your claim that saving Terri would create some massive new Federal power is ridiculous. All it required was the exercise of the power the Federal government has always had...the power to enforce the fundamental rights found in the Bill of Rights.
And that didn't even need to happen. The Governor could have easily done the same under Article One, Section Two of the FL Constitution.
It has always been my belief that the general consensus is that the judges ignore the law when it does not fit their ideology. This is what I refer to when saying that changing the law would not necessarily rein them in. Take the abortion issue and the laws passed by Congress to control it only to have the courts toss those laws.
As opposed to your automatic right to judge the motivations of posters who disagree with you. Got it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.