Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

G.O.P. Right Is Splintered on Schiavo Intervention
NY Times ^ | 3.23.05

Posted on 03/22/2005 10:42:14 PM PST by ambrose

The New York Times


March 23, 2005
CONSERVATIVES

G.O.P. Right Is Splintered on Schiavo Intervention

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

WASHINGTON, March 22 - The vote by Congress to allow the federal courts to take over the Terri Schiavo case has created distress among some conservatives who say that lawmakers violated a cornerstone of conservative philosophy by intervening in the ruling of a state court.

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."


Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search |

Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top



TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: federalism; johnwarner; prolife; schiavo; terri; terrischiavo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 next last
To: ambrose; All
Old liberal cliche.

Everytime an activist federal judge stomps on some town or state's rights (especially freedom of religion), they demand we take it as gospel. Everytime an activist state judge or supreme court rules in there favor, they claim state's rights.

The legally blind Judge Greer is not the state. As a matter of fact, the elected represenatives of the State of Florida have basically been banned from intervention by the Florida Supreme Court. This is the same court that wanted democrats to have multiple recounts for imaginary Gore voters who "had their vote stolen" until he stole the election.

Of course the fact that many democrats disagreed with the pro-death movement will get nowhere near as much coverage even though many more democrats voted for federal intervention than republicans voted against it.

21 posted on 03/22/2005 11:08:10 PM PST by pulaskibush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose

"Splinter" is the appropriate word because the conservatives who would rather let Terri die than violate abstract principles comprise a mere splinter; whereas conservatives (like me) believe actual LIFE trumps all comprise the large piece of wood from which that splinter breaks.


22 posted on 03/22/2005 11:08:32 PM PST by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose

"Divide and Conquer"


23 posted on 03/22/2005 11:08:48 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pulaskibush

Maybe if someone explained that Terri was being DISENFRANCHISED.


24 posted on 03/22/2005 11:09:25 PM PST by VisualizeSmallerGovernment (Question Liberal Authority)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: VisualizeSmallerGovernment
Some Federal Judge will probably make it illegal for Terri to have a funeral.

According to news reports Michael Schiavo has already ordered an immediate cremation.

25 posted on 03/22/2005 11:10:06 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Amen to your post!


26 posted on 03/22/2005 11:10:39 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: speed_addiction



"If only Terri Schiavo had murdered a few people before she had her accident, there'd be no controversy. She would not only be guaranteed 25 or 30 years of life while her appeals wended their way through the courts, but at the end of that time, if worse came to worst, she would be given a painless injection, not starved to death.

As far as I can see, the entire basis for the case being argued by those wanting her dead is that she can't walk, she can't talk, and she obviously can't feed herself.

Well, if those are sufficient grounds for exterminating Terri Schiavo, they provide equally good reasons for murdering every baby in the world!"


27 posted on 03/22/2005 11:10:44 PM PST by tessalu ( A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sir Valentino

By the way, 90% of the people that I have asked have said they would not want to live in that condition even if that meant removing a feeding tube. This is not a new procedure.


28 posted on 03/22/2005 11:13:53 PM PST by Hootch (Doesn't Condie look great in boots!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
"The vote by Congress to allow the federal courts to take over the Terri Schiavo case has created distress among some conservatives who say that lawmakers violated a cornerstone of conservative philosophy by intervening in the ruling of a state court."

Isn't it their duty to intervene in a State Court decision if said court has violated the civil rights of an American citizen? What's their real problem anway, a lack of testosterone or the fear of losing votes?

29 posted on 03/22/2005 11:14:28 PM PST by TheCrusader ("the frenzy of the Mohammedans has devastated the Churches of God" - Pope Urban II, 1097 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VisualizeSmallerGovernment
Michael Shiavo has demanded that Terri be cremated. Seeing as how Mike has not allowed MRI's, PET scans, or chances of rehab after he got the malpractice money, I'm sure he'll object to an autopsy.

He'll suddenly remember that Terri said sometime ago that she would not want an autopsy and Judge Greer will accept it.

30 posted on 03/22/2005 11:14:33 PM PST by pulaskibush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

To: Hootch
But would the 90% who replied to you like to actually be able to have some input in the decision (about staying on feeding tubes or the like)?

In this instance,there is no living will, nothing signed by the lady they are trying to kill, only the supposed recollection of her husband (no corroboration).

It would seem that without a living will in existance, the words of another concerning the termination of life would be simply hearsay. There ought to be a presumption of life in such cases, not death. The courts should protect those who are powerless to protect themselves.

32 posted on 03/22/2005 11:17:49 PM PST by twntaipan (demonRATs: The true heirs of Eichman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tessalu
"Well, if those are sufficient grounds for exterminating Terri Schiavo, they provide equally good reasons for murdering every baby in the world!"

Isn't that what they're trying to do already? They've used the "can't survive on his/her own" justification for years to support abortion.
33 posted on 03/22/2005 11:23:01 PM PST by ElectionTracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

What ever happened to the concept of police investigation when there is an 'unexplainable' injury??? Even now, after all the public scrutiny, you would think the police might want to take a 'look see' at this case NOW. Especially if Terri dies, you'd think they'd get a court order to do an autopsy to determine past injuries.

This whole thing stinks.


34 posted on 03/22/2005 11:28:05 PM PST by XenaLee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Hootch
"By the way, 90% of the people that I have asked have said they would not want to live in that condition"

And 100% of those people you asked have no real idea of what they'd want unless they actually found themselves in that position. And if Terri Schiavo's mind is active inside, there is always hope for some partial recovery with the incredible advances constantly being brought forward in modern medicine.

Terri Schiavo may simply want to live because she knows that she still brings joy to the hearts of her beloved parents. She may want to live to please God and serve His purpose for her. She may want to live because she's simply not ready to die yet. AND SHE MAY WANT TO LIVE BECAUSE AS A CATHOLIC SHE BELIEVES THAT ENDING HER OWN LIFE OFFENDS GOD AND ENDANGERS HER SOUL. There could any one of a thousand reasons why she may want to live.

All anyone really needs to know is that she's an innocent woman who can live a lot longer on a simple feeding tube, who has a whole family who wants to take her home and care for her, and who has the full support of half this great nation, (including their financial support for medical expenses). You cannot find any moral or reasonable reason to snuff out her life by starving her, End of story, for me anyway.

35 posted on 03/22/2005 11:28:52 PM PST by TheCrusader ("the frenzy of the Mohammedans has devastated the Churches of God" - Pope Urban II, 1097 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: utahagen
"Splinter" is the appropriate word because the conservatives who would rather let Terri die than violate abstract principles comprise a mere splinter; whereas conservatives (like me) believe actual LIFE trumps all comprise the large piece of wood from which that splinter breaks.

More than just "right"; DAMN right! :)

36 posted on 03/22/2005 11:34:43 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle (I feel more and more like a revolted Charlton Heston, witnessing ape society for the very first time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader

Their real problem is that those people are not Republicans, but Democrats who like to be called Republicans because they want to steer the party to the left.


37 posted on 03/22/2005 11:37:06 PM PST by ElectionTracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ambrose

Terri is over 18.....didn't the Supreme Court rule on this recently?


38 posted on 03/22/2005 11:55:50 PM PST by skimask (I only fly on planes with two right wings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Spunky
The more stringent the burden of proof a party must bear, the more that party bears the risk of an erroneous decision. We believe that Missouri may permissibly place an increased risk of an erroneous decision on those seeking to terminate an incompetent individual's life-sustaining treatment.

An erroneous decision not to terminate results in a maintenance of the status quo; the possibility of subsequent developments such as advancements in medical science, the discovery of new evidence regarding the patient's intent, changes in the law, or simply the unexpected death of the patient despite the administration of life-sustaining treatment at least create the potential that a wrong decision will eventually be corrected or its impact mitigated.

An erroneous decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, however, is not susceptible of correction.

From the ruling you have linked to. This is what the President was talking about-- to err on the side of life.

Judge Greer is not following established case law by the Supreme Court. He is trying to reverse this decision and make new law.

This is what's causing the problem in this case . When you have Activists judges that try to rewrite The Constitution or established case law to suit themselves or their agenda that's when you have major complications.

They have to make it up as they go along.

None of the judges or courts have looked at his basis for ruling the way he did .

They just looked to see if he followed procedures. These activists judges have to go. They are already made it legal to kill babies and now they want to kill the physical and mental disabled.

There is a malignant undercurrent of evil growing in the shadows of our country.

39 posted on 03/23/2005 12:42:22 AM PST by mississippi red-neck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Spunky
The more stringent the burden of proof a party must bear, the more that party bears the risk of an erroneous decision. We believe that Missouri may permissibly place an increased risk of an erroneous decision on those seeking to terminate an incompetent individual's life-sustaining treatment.

An erroneous decision not to terminate results in a maintenance of the status quo; the possibility of subsequent developments such as advancements in medical science, the discovery of new evidence regarding the patient's intent, changes in the law, or simply the unexpected death of the patient despite the administration of life-sustaining treatment at least create the potential that a wrong decision will eventually be corrected or its impact mitigated.

An erroneous decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, however, is not susceptible of correction.

From the ruling you have linked to. This is what the President was talking about-- to err on the side of life.

Judge Greer is not following established case law by the Supreme Court. He is trying to reverse this decision and make new law.

This is what's causing the problem in this case . When you have Activists judges that try to rewrite The Constitution or established case law to suit themselves or their agenda that's when you have major complications.

They have to make it up as they go along.

None of the judges or courts have looked at his basis for ruling the way he did .

They just looked to see if he followed procedures. These activists judges have to go. They are already made it legal to kill babies and now they want to kill the physical and mental disabled.

There is a malignant undercurrent of evil growing in the shadows of our country.

40 posted on 03/23/2005 12:43:26 AM PST by mississippi red-neck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson