Posted on 03/19/2005 8:00:19 AM PST by beyond the sea
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Friday that subpoenas issued by Sen. Mike Enzi compelling Terri Schiavo to appear at a March 28 congressional hearing made it a crime to disconnect her feeding tube - and threatened anyone who interfered with her testimony with jail.
In a statement issued by the majority leader's office, Frist said:
"Federal criminal law protects witnesses called before official Congressional committee proceedings from anyone who may obstruct or impede a witness’ attendance or testimony."
"More specifically," said the Senate's top Republican, "the law protects a witness from anyone who - by threats, force, or by any threatening letter or communication - influences, obstructs, or impedes an inquiry or investigation by Congress.
"Anyone who violates this law is subject to criminal fines and imprisonment," Frist said.
His comments appeared to be directed at Florida state judge George Greer, who brazenly defied the Enzi subpoena on Friday and ordered Schiavo's starvation to commence.
Frist's statement echoed comments by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who said late Friday that he intended to charge Greer with contempt of Congress.
"No little judge sitting in a state district court in Florida is going to usurp the authority of Congress," he complained.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
I hear you.
Frist looks like he'd 'do a Dukakis' if he were asked that same question Dukakis was asked about his wife at that infamous debate years ago.
****
The issue of capital punishment came up at the October 13, 1988 debate between the two presidential nominees. Bernard Shaw, the moderator of the debate, asked Dukakis, "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis [his wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" Dukakis replied cooly, "No, I don't, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life." The reply was sincere and well-put, but Dukakis' answer lacked the emotion needed for a question in which he was forced to consider his wife's death.
From ---- http://www.answers.com/topic/michael-dukakis
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Well, Felos said yesterday in his emotional raving rant, that Congress did not have the authority. Perhaps he should get himself some legal representation and advice as well.
Yoi, that's rough.
Good statement. Now, Dr. Frist, please back it up with some action. (And yes, I think the judge would look just dandy in prison orange.)
That's exactly what I've been waiting Schiavo's supporters to point out - Bush's administration is AWOL on saving a woman's life. It seems that pressure is needed to force the administration to act.
Stop talking and do something"
He can't. A leopard can't change is spots and frist is only about "the threat."
It might, but that's not what is happening here. States - and backwater state judges - don't have the "right" to deny constitutional rights, such as due process, to incapacitated people (or to Blacks, or to Catholics or to Jews or to any other minority that might be unpopular in the trailer-park counties of the South). The federal government has authority to step in when federal constitutional rights are being violated.
Oh, but PLEAAAAASE let the good judge spend a few days and nights in RAEFORD, catching up with old acquaintences. YES!!!
Frist leaves me cold. He has NO SPIRIT.
Nope.
Federal law is the 'establishing construct' of our judiciary system.
Once Congress has issued a supoena to appear the states may NOT interferre with the investigation by not allowing a witness to appear.
"Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the CONGRESS may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. "
What "political purpose" is involved here?
Actually as I understand it the judge is on the right side of the law. Although, something should have been done long before this.
this will prove that Janet "Burn Em All" Reno has more balls than Sister Frist.
thinking to myself out loud....
What did (then) Atty Genl Reno do about it this?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
I am sorry but I do not approve of the TACTICS being used "by our side" to keep Terry from having her tube pulled. I am accoustomed to the left doing these things when they feel passionate but not us. I read a column in National Review that Terry never had a CT scan or MRI. I have seen the MRI so unless someone was lying and it is not hers, it exists. It is absolutely awful looking! I heard her husband is only interested in the malpractice settlement. I understand that the money is gone. Terry is being supported on Medicaid, not by her parents. I heard her family are devout Catholics but I understand they are Jewish. Frist says he can question the diagnosis from a picture. I wish most of us Docs could do that! THIS IN NO WAY IS AN ARGUMENT FOR OR AGAINST THE REMOVAL OF THE FEEDING TUBE but rather an argumenbt for not mimicking the tactics of the left because we believe strongly in something. Lets have the debate where it belongs, on the moral question, not on non truths.
WHERE IS THE DCF?
WHERE IS JEB BUSH?
How is the judge on the right side of the law?
By appointing HIMSELF as guardian of Terri Shiavo and not an independent guardian who would have her best interests at heart.
This,seems to me, is a conflict of interest.
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.