The Rule of Law in the Terry Schiavo Case (Vanity)

Ive held off responding to the many many FR posts on the Terry Schiavo debacle...until now. Im raising an issue regardng the 'rule of law' that I feel may not have been discussed previously on this forum. Im also offering up some personal comments...you can take them or leave them.

I make a disclaimer up front that I am not a lawyer. The law, however, should make common sense to all of us citizens...whether we are lawyers or not. If I have questions or concerns...others may have them as well...so I invite legal experts to weigh in. Of course, I also invite debate...but please save your flames....they dont serve any purpose here.

Frankly, I am aghast at the thought of a woman slowly being put to death using a horrific means of execution...namely denial of food and water.

I am shocked that it has to come to this...in a country with the best medical and technical facilities for maintaining life...and I hope you all are too...no matter whether you love or hate Jeb Bush and Michael Shiavo, and the 'rule of law'.

There are some things that transend politics...they have to do with our common humanity, and decency. If you can maintian a cavalier attitude towards what is happening in Pinellas County...you dont have a heart Im afraid...I dont care what your politics are.

And so...for those of you upholding the 'rule of law'... allowance should be given to those Freepers who have sincere and deeply held beliefs towards the sanctity of life...people who take their faith and religion very seriously, and people who sometimes get emotional when confronted with what they perceive as blatant evil.

Those who advocate the 'rule of law' should also understand that a deeply religious person always places their morality and faith on a higher level than a court order. Also note that the 'religious right' is one of the pivitol groups that put George Bush and Jeb Bush in elected office in the first place.

Those of faith must also give allowance to people who have legitimate questions on the following the rule of law...and questioning the governments intrusion into prolonging the life of a woman they see as already brain dead. In addition, there are also legitimate questions regarding the authoity of the federal government to intervene in what would normally be a state matter. Now keep in mind...Im not saying I agree with these positions, but I do understand where those concerns are coming from.

But more to the immediate point..I have a few comments / questions on the 'rule of law'...as it is being thrown about on these threads.

First off...I too am a big fan of the 'rule of law'. It provides the basic ingrediant for our national sovereignty, and the cohesiveness of our society. We have rules...and precedents...and they should be followed to maintain the system of government and society AS OUR FOUNDERS INTENDED THORUGH THE CONSTITUTION. Lets not lose site of that...it is all based on the Constitution.

But what is the Constitution itself based on? Simple...Judeo Christian inspired morality and philosophy...interpteted through the age of the enlightenment...and the precedent of English common law, down from the time of the Magna Carta...and ultimately transcribed and interpeted by very wise, learned, and moral men such as Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton, etc..

The philosophy is summed up clearly in Jeffersons Declaration..."all men are created equal...endowed with their Creator with certain inalienable rights...life ,liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

And so I ask just what is the 'rule of law' in this particular case of Terry Schiavo...what is the legal precendent to starve a woman to death who has NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME.... there is none. Not in our legal system that I am aware of. So perhaps the 'rule of law' at its most basic level is NOT being followed here.

Just what is the rule of law in this instance...IMHO ...it is a legal technicality...a 'gotcha'...the equivalent of a legal 'bug' in the system.

In what types of cases are peoples lives on the line...whereby life and death of an individual hangs in the balance? Simple...capital murder cases. What do these cases all have in common...simple again...they are decided in accordance with the 'rule of law'...using a jury system precedent....and the legal burden of proof required to convict and execute an individual is very high indeed. It requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It normally requires solid forensic evidence FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES, and multiple corroborating expert witnesses to interpet this evidence in plain terms for the jury to understand.

Despite all this...do juries sometimes make mistakes? You bet...thats why we have the appeals process...and as a final arbiter...we have the power of the executive branch to commute or order a stay on an execution , and to pardon an offender once convicted. Those are precendents established by the 'rule of law' in our legal system.

Have those precedents been followed scrupulously in this particlular case? Has this judge allowed multiple corroborating expert witnesses to testify as to the mental competancy of Terry? Has a recent MRI or CAT scan been conducted to ascertain her brain functions prior to removing her feeding tubes? Does the Florida law provide for the removal of a tube...but not for the complete denial of all food and water? Have recent tests been conducted that would establish that Terry cannot swallow or receive nourishment naturally from any source other than a feeding tube? In short... has this judge been following the intent of the Florida law closely in making his decisions..or has he operated capriciously and outside of the law...making his decisions suspect, appealable, and ultimately reversible...PROVIDED THAT THE PROPER LEGAL MOTIONS HAVE BEEN FILED ON BEHALF OF TERRY?

And then there is motive...does Michael have a conflicting motive which would require that multiple witnesses be provided to establish the truth of the matter. If Terry was found murdered, would Michael's testimony be considered final proof of the facts...with no further corroborating witnesses or investigation established, considering his finacial interest, and the fact that he has already established a defacto common law marrigae with another woman, complete with children? Doesn't the whole case rest on Michaels assertion that his wife did indeed NOT want to be kept alive through artifical means? Has this assertion been established beyond a reasonable doubt?

The short answer...IMO...is that the precedence for a capital muder trial has NOT been followed in any respect in this case. The precedent that has ATTEMPTED to have been followed is the legal precedent for a common civil action...which has a much lower burden of proof...a preponderance of evidence...NOT proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I seriously doubt that a civil action involving large sums of money (such as her insurance settlements) would have been decided with such a low standard of proof.

A good friend recently went thorugh a bitter divorce settlement...the whims of the judge were the final arbiter of his settlement. Do we want those same capricious standards applied in divorce cases to be also applied to life and death cases involving terminal or disabled patients?

Of course not. This is why I believe tha the Fla legislature passed, and Jeb signed...a very poorly crafted law...a law which gives the precedence of a divorce hearing to the issue of a persons life...the equivalent of a capital murder case.

It is a technical legal 'glitch'...and it must be remedied. I believe it will...and that was the initial attempt of the congress in addressing this issue. I also believe that the political and legal powers that be have decided that they screwed up big time....they now have an embarassing legal mess on their hands...and some just want to back away and quietly remedy the situation. Meanwhile...a woman slowly dies.

It seems to me (JMHO) that Jeb probably does NOT have precedent to go in and physically remove Terry, but that he DOES have legal authority to insure that the responsible state agency (DCF) be ALLOWED TO ITSELF investigate, and, using their own experts, determine a finding of fact in Terry's physical condition.

She may die anyway, but the state would have been satisfied that its own laws were being followed to the letter of the law. That is, after all, part of the checks and balances process afforded by the 'rule of law' in our society.

Howver, IMHO, the real test of the legality of this whole sordid affair will come after Terry dies. Jeb also has authority it appears, to insure that the state ME conduct an independent investigation into Terry's death, and conduct a thorough autopsy...mandated by her husbands desire to cremate her body.

This finding of fact will be a legal remedy afforded to the state, it will also bring some closure to this affaire if we can establish more definately what was the final state of Terrys brain functions. Was her brain largly dead...as many have claimed? Can a thorough autopsy provide information that will be needed by other legislatures in crafting their own laws...to insure that this tragedy is never repeated?

I believe an independetn investigation and autopsy is absoultely necessary. If Terry's body is quickly removed and cremated...the rule of law we treasure would not have been served, and the executive branch would have surrendered yet more of its authority granted by the rule of law.

May God grant mercy, peace, comfort, and support to Terry and to her family, friends, and many many supporters.

Wow. Thanks for finally ending the suspense. I've seen several comment in other Schiavo threads, "I wonder what Dat Mon" thinks about all this.

Wow. Thanks for finally ending the suspense. I've seen several comment in other Schiavo threads, "I wonder what Dat Mon" thinks about all this.

I hadn't seen those comments, but as for myself, there are indeed posters that I had wondered what if they had an opinion and if so what it might be, and I was certainly interested in reading Dat Mon's.

Thanks, for posting that. I have been holding my tongue for ten days, so to speak. LOL. my doctor asked me what I had been doing when I told her my jaw was hurting. I told her I had been grinding my teeth.

Wow. Thanks for finally ending the suspense. I've seen several comment in other Schiavo threads, "I wonder what Dat Mon" thinks about all this.

But no one wondered at all what "SittinYonder" thought.

Go figure.

Two points

This is my first vanity post on FR after a thousand posts or so...so big deal.

You can choose to ignore this thread...and grab a cold one. The choice is yours. Aint this a grand site (and country).

There may be a strategy here:

You say: And so I ask just what is the 'rule of law' in this particular case of Terry Schiavo...what is the legal precendent to starve a woman to death who has NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME.... there is none. Not in our legal system that I am aware of. So perhaps the 'rule of law' at its most basic level is NOT being followed here.

Why can't Bush have his police arrest all persons interfearing with her parents giving Terri food and water by non-extrordinary means (ice chips) and instruct the AG to present them up for Jury trial on charges of conspirasy to murder in the 1st degree. This would include Sherriffs, local cops, lawyers and judges.

There is no constitutional legisllation demanding starvation by nonextrordinary means.

Today is the day all partys are to be before a Congressional Committee.. (Including Terri) Are they there or not?? Is the Rule of Law being really followed or not???
Are the US Marshalls going to enforce a Congressional Suppeana??

Im pingin ya mon.

Im thinking of that great post from way back regarding the first meeting of Congress...and the invocation to prayer.

You know the one...it was based on that painting by a New York artist.

And then there is motive...does Michael have a conflicting motive which would require that multiple witnesses be provided to establish the truth of the matter.

Excellent tinfoil-free post. I agree!!

"Excellent tinfoil-free post. I agree!!"

Thanks. Now there is something you and hedge both agree on.

Yes Virginia, there can be logical consensus on this forum.

Excellent point. From the state's POV, as an objective investigater, they should be looking at this as an abusive situation. The state should take custody and presume all principles in the eight year legal battle, judge included, as possible contributors. Everyone seeking access to Terri, once the state stabilized her condition, should be screened and monitored until the state resolves this.

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.