Posted on 03/22/2005 10:42:14 PM PST by ambrose
March 23, 2005CONSERVATIVESG.O.P. Right Is Splintered on Schiavo Intervention
The emerging debate, carried out against a rush of court decisions and Congressional action, has highlighted a conflict of priorities among conservatives and signals tensions that Republicans are likely to face as Congressional leaders and President Bush push social issues over the next two years, party leaders say.
"This is a clash between the social conservatives and the process conservatives, and I would count myself a process conservative," said David Davenport of the Hoover Institute, a conservative research organization. "When a case like this has been heard by 19 judges in six courts and it's been appealed to the Supreme Court three times, the process has worked - even if it hasn't given the result that the social conservatives want. For Congress to step in really is a violation of federalism." Stephen Moore, a conservative advocate who is president of the Free Enterprise Fund, said: "I don't normally like to see the federal government intervening in a situation like this, which I think should be resolved ultimately by the family: I think states' rights should take precedence over federal intervention. A lot of conservatives are really struggling with this case." Some more moderate Republicans are also uneasy. Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, the sole Republican to oppose the Schiavo bill in a voice vote in the Senate, said: "This senator has learned from many years you've got to separate your own emotions from the duty to support the Constitution of this country. These are fundamental principles of federalism." "It looks as if it's a wholly Republican exercise," Mr. Warner said, "but in the ranks of the Republican Party, there is not a unanimous view that Congress should be taking this step." In interviews over the past two days, conservatives who expressed concern about the turn of events in Congress stopped short of condemning the vote in which overwhelming majorities supported the Schiavo bill, and they generally applauded the goal of trying to keep Ms. Schiavo alive. But they said they were concerned about what precedent had been set and said the vote went against Republicans who were libertarian, advocates of states' rights or supporters of individual rights. "My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. "This couldn't be a more classic case of a state responsibility." "This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy," Mr. Shays said. "There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them." While the intensity of the dissent appears to be rising - Mr. Warner made a point Tuesday of calling attention to his little-noticed opposition in a nearly empty Senate chamber over the weekend - support for the measure among Republican and conservative leaders still appears strong. In interviews, some conservatives either dismissed the argument that the vote was a federal intrusion on states' rights or argued that their opposition to euthanasia as part of their support of the right-to-life movement trumped any aversion they might have to a dominant federal government. "There's a larger issue in play," and Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, "and that is the whole issue of the definition of life. The issue of when is it a life is a broader issue than just a state defining that. I don't think we can have 50 different definitions of life."
Other Republicans who supported the Schiavo bill said they were wrestling conflicting beliefs. Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio, a former governor and a strong advocate of states' rights, decided to support the bill after determining that his opposition to euthanasia outweighed his views on federalism, an aide said. Senator Tom Coburn, a newly elected conservative Republican from Oklahoma, said: "This isn't a states' rights issue. What we're saying is they are going to review it. The states are not given the right to take away somebody's constitutional rights." Representative Tom DeLay, the Texas Republican who is the House majority leader, bristled on Sunday when he was asked about how to square the bill with federalist precepts. "I really think it is interesting that the media is defining what conservatism is," Mr. DeLay said. "The conservative doctrine here is the Constitution of the United States." The Republican Party has long associated itself with limiting the power of the federal government over the states, though this is not the only time that party leaders have veered from that position. Most famously, in 2000, it persuaded the Supreme Court to overturn a Florida court ruling ordering a recount of the vote in the presidential election between Al Gore and George Bush. But now the Schiavo case is illustrating splinters in the conservative movement that Mr. Bush managed to bridge in his last campaign, and the challenges Mr. Bush and Republicans face in trying to govern over the next two years, even though they control Congress as well as the White House. "The libertarian streak in me says, you know, people should have the right to die," Mr. Moore, of the Free Enterprise Fund, said. "But as so many conservatives, I'm also very pro-life. Those two philosophies are conflicting with each other." Bob Levy, a fellow with the Cato Institute, argued that Democrats and Republicans alike were being "incredibly hypocritical" in this case: Democrats by suddenly embracing states' rights and Republicans by asserting the power of the federal government. "These questions are not the business of Congress," Mr. Levy said of the Schiavo dispute. "The Constitution does not give Congress the power to define life or death. The only role for the court is once the state legislature establishes what the rules are, the court can decide if the rules have been properly applied."
Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1368229/posts
881503CONCUR v. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPT. OF HEALTH
No. 881503
[June 25, 1990]
Justice Scalia, concurring.
The various opinions in this case portray quite clearly the difficult, indeed agonizing, questions that are presented by the constantly increasing power of science to keep the human body alive for longer than any reasonable person would want to inhabit it. The States have begun to grapple with these problems through legislation. I am concerned, from the tenor of today's opinions, that we are poised to confuse that enterprise as successfully as we have confused the enterprise of legislating concerning abortionrequiring it to be conducted against a background of federal constitutional imperatives that are unknown because they are being newly crafted from Term to Term. That would be a great misfortune.
While I agree with the Court's analysis today, and therefore join in its opinion, I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicideincluding suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life-and-death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable.
-snip-
The only *SPLINTERING* is caused by the *RINOs* who want to see Terri *MURDERED*. The *TRUE* conservatives are *UNITED*.
Scalia is a traitor! Impeach that SOB now! /sarc
Gee, guess I'll have to wait for the article:
"Democrat Leftist United In Death Sentence for Innocents by Judicial Neglect"
This whole line of attack is pure BS, and once again vividly demonstrates the utter inability of the Left to even THINK anymore.
The unalienable God-given rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights, of which the protection of the right to life of the innocent is surely supreme, are not a question for the several States.
No state in the Union has the power to allow the killing of disabled people, sorry.
Any conservative who is naive enough to by this tripe is a detriment to our cause, unfortunately.
Again, this attempt to divide conservatives is stupid on the face of it.
im a liberal, but this is the rare time i agree with the people who value the culture of life.
Terri's husband should of divorced his wife. Gave the majority of the malpractice award money for her medical care and went on his merry way with his new woman.
All the award money will be blood money if terri dies.
All terri's husband wants is for her to be dead. he wanted Terri to die for the last seven years. Such as being happy when Terri had a UTI.
This RINO in California wants Terri alive.
So you believe Mike's story about "She said she wanted to die" and have a NYTimes "Chaffee/Specter/etc.='prominent Republicans'" article and a ruling by Justice Scalia on the unrelated topic of suicide to "prove" it.
This is so much like Terri Schivo's case (except it was her parents who wanted to stop the feeding)
..In sum, we conclude that a State may apply a clear and convincing evidence standard in proceedings where a guardian seeks to discontinue nutrition and hydration of a person diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that in this case the testimony adduced at trial did not amount to clear and convincing proof of the patient's desire to have hydration and nutrition withdrawn. In so doing, it reversed a decision of the Missouri trial court which had found that the evidence "suggested" Nancy Cruzan would not have desired to continue such measures, but which had not adopted the standard of "clear and convincing evidence" enunciated by the Supreme Court. The testimony adduced at trial consisted primarily of Nancy Cruzan's statements made to a housemate about a year before her accident that she would not want to live should she face life as a "vegetable," and other observations to the same effect. The observations did not deal in terms with withdrawal of medical treatment or of hydration and nutrition. We cannot say that the Supreme Court of Missouri committed constitutional error in reaching the conclusion that it did. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri is Affirmed. United States Supreme Court Decision in Cruzan Case
This case is really separating the sheep from the goats ( or should I say RINO's).
"Clear and convincing evidence"
Unfortunately, what we have here is hearsay which is not a standard of court rules to determine this. Nice try.
If Terri Schiavo is murdered by these Godless bastards, they will pay like never before at the ballot box
yeah--they'll all rush out and vote Democrat because of this case...NOT..even if they think Congress as a matter of comity should not have acted.
We are being played like fools, let's not forget the Theresa life could of been saved long ago. Thanks to Florida State Senator JIM THE FAT,FAT PIG KING (R) and the other 20 State Sentaors (8-Repub & 12 -Demo) Terri is being murdered right in our FACE on the MOST HOLIEST TIME for those that believe in GOD, JESUS, HOLY MOTHER MARY, AND GOOD... We are losing this TEST, it looks like ? The sky around here in central florida is not looking good. GOD is not happy, and GOD will send a message to mankind very soon....
Thank You JEB...We control the Governor,the house,senate, and the U.S. Congress, and the White House, but we can't STOP a murder in slow progress in our face....
I feel safe now....This country will NEVER BE THE SAME !
Florida Look Up, check-out the weather,they have no clue..what they do...
There are two types of politicians in this country. Those who are for starving disabled women to death, and those who aren't. Let's see who wins when Terri is buried completely innocent of any crime and setenced to a death even convicted murderers are immune from.
What are there, 230 Republicans in the House of Representatives? Of which 5 voted against Terri's Law?
Who is more "splintered" on this issue - Republicans or Democrats?
I'm sorry to say that they aren't.
I know many strong christian people that feel she should be allowed to die. 100 years ago Terry would have probably not lasted 6 months in the condition she was in.
I think it is simply wrong to starve someone. My parents live in Florida and have followed this case closely. They both feel that they have run this through every legal process that it could and should have been run through and they say it is now time to let her go.
She WILL go to a better place.
Some Federal Judge will probably make it illegal for Terri to have a funeral.
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.