That is NOT true
Howlin and I may have different view points about this case
But she has NEVER favored killing Terry
Howlin's concerns are about Congress over stepping their bounds
Don't you dare defend me to these people.
Mmmmmhmmmm....
And Dred Scott and baby Roe (who actually lived, but who's keeping track?) are down with the legal system, huh?
Legal precedent can be wrong. And I say that as a licensed attorney!
The principle of the case is all that matters. Pro Michael Schiavo's position = pro killing Terri.
Ah yes. The judiciary should always have the final say on U.S. policy..right? Once any judge decides anything...no matter how ludicrous, the legislative branch simply has no power to to put their 2 cents in the political forum....Wrong.
Here are a few thoughts from mark levin on this issue:
Some other posts today from Levin below that on the subject of Legislative vs. Judicial powers.
HERE WE ARE [K. J. Lopez] Cover for the feminist Left for not being a defender of the rights of Terri Schiavo: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0503190165mar19,1,6639786.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true)
Marc Spindelman, a visiting professor of law at Georgetown University who specializes in bioethics, said the message sent by the subpoenas is chilling.
"What's next? If Congress doesn't like it, are they going to subpoena individual women to testify before Congress in order to keep them from exercising their rights to an abortion?" he said. "What about individuals who want to terminate a respirator? Is Congress going to bring them in and start asking them questions? Who couldn't be dissuaded from exercising their constitutional rights in certain ways in the face of a federal subpoena? The spectacle of this--it's unbelievable."
***********
RE: RE: HERE WE ARE [Mark R. Levin] This is a typical slippery slope argument, applied only to Congress but not to the judiciary. I could ask, for instance: what next, will judges, on the word of a putative spouse, deny nutrition to alzheimer patients who, on their own, would surely die of starvation? And what of the standard of proof and evidence? There's nothing in writing here, no living will, no witnesses -- just heresay. Is that the standard judges will now use, and if they can use this standard on a matter of life and death, what about wills, trust, estates? Are they all to be decided now based on oral, unwitnessed representations?
***********
AND WHAT'S TO STOP CONGRESS FROM... [Mark R. Levin] And what's to stop Congress from calling women who might seek abortions? Well, what's to stop Congress from doing anything stupid or outrageous? We, the people. Even those who oppose abortion would likely react very negatively to such a spectacle. Congress has called witnessed who've had abortions who regret having had the procedure and others who've argued against prohibiting, for instance, partial birth abortion. This has been done without exploitation or abuse. But the question the critics of the House refuse to ask and answer is who or what can check a judiciary that, more and more, is making policy decisions? If not Congress, than no one. And in many cases, I expect that's perfectly fine by them.
***********
IT’S THE JUDGES, STUPID [Mark R. Levin] I see this more as a struggle between the elected branches and the judiciary. The Florida legislature and Governor Jeb Bush did, in fact, attempt to intervene in the Schiavo case a few years back, and prevent the removal of her feeding tube. But the Florida Supreme Court ruled, among other things, that the governor had no such power. Yesterday, Florida Superior Court Judge Greer, in essence, said the same about congressional authority. He quickly dismissed the relevance of the House subpoenas with this statement: "I have had no cogent reason why the committee should intervene." The state judge, therefore, contended that the House had to convince him of the legitimacy of its subpoena to compel witnesses to appear so it can conduct hearings. I've heard nothing from academia about this stunning judicial assertion.
As the courts continue to usurp the policy- and law-making power of the elected branches, and offend an ever-growing number of Americans and their representatives, we can expect the tension between the elected branches and the judiciary to grow. The judges have no one to blame but themselves. In the eyes of many, they have pursued a course that delegitimizes their institution and calls into question their motives. And while the courts set themselves up as the final arbiters of all conflicts between themselves and the other branches, at least the House, in this first test of constitutional wills, does not appear ready to surrender. After all, if it won't protect its own constitutional prerogatives, who will?
The more the House resists judicial usurpation, the more unhinged its critics in academia and the mainstream media will become -- accusing it of politicizing the independent judiciary, intimidating judges, and so forth. The reason for this is straightforward: the judiciary is the means by which the Left has been most successful in recent decades in imposing its agenda on society. They've gone to extraordinary lengths to obstruct President Bush's judicial nominations, including the unconstitutional use of filibusters in the Senate, and they will be equally zealous in the House.
***********
A ROLE FOR CONGRESS [Mark R. Levin] No one questions the power of Congress to issue subpoenas to pursue its core function, i.e., to conduct hearings and investigate issues where there might be a legislative purpose. And clearly, in this case, Congress is genuinely interested in taking up the issue of protecting disabled and incapacitated people. And Congress is certainly free to use the most widely known example of court-ordered starvation as a basis for its inquiry. If its purpose is also to save from starvation the person at the center of its inquiry, that's perfectly legitimate as well.
And when Congress issues subpoenas, they are to be honored by the recipients, or they face possible prosecution for contempt of Congress. Compliance with congressional subpoenas is every bit as critical to maintaining the rule of law under our constitutional system as is compliance with a court order. And a state trial judge is not free to blithely dismiss such congressional action, whether he agrees with it or not. He stands in the same shoes as others in this regard, i.e., he cannot take affirmative steps to contravene a congressional subpoena. Even if one wishes to descend into some kind of balancing test, the state trial judge could have easily prevented a constitutional confrontation by delaying his order until Congress could at least conduct hearings, thereby ensuring that the authority of both branches of government were not offended. Instead, the state trial judge did what too many judges do, i.e., he vetoed a decision or action by Congress. The mainstream media will ignore this aspect of what has occurred, as it already has, preferring to regurgitate the shrill accusations of academics and lawyers who worship before the bench. Posted at 10:53 AM
The parents/family of Terri Shiavo begged congress to step in. Without something in writing from Terri, and family willing/begging to take care of her, why should the decision be to let her die?
I agree that it has nothing to do with Michael Shiavo's morality, it's about life and death and no written directive from Terri. We should always come down on the side of life when this is the case.
The government gets involved in all sorts of "personal/family matters" when there is or is not something in writing. Why not this one?