Appeals Court Refuses to insert Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube

FoxNews

[chimera]

I just love the total deference some on here are showing the courts and judges all of a sudden.

Remember that the courts are an institution of government. Those institutions reflect our government, and the theory of representative government is that the government reflects the people who establish it.

I was pessimistic from the beginning that the courts would save Terri Schiavo, an innocent woman being put to death for no justifiable reason, but simply on the word of another whose motives are questionable. The courts of this land are as steeped in the culture of death that reigns in this country as any other institution. There will be those just and fair-minded people who will stand against the tide of death, but at this time they are in the minority. I think the majority are either pro-death, or simply too intellectually lazy to examine with a measured and compassionate eye what is happening around them.

[snarkytart]

I agree.

You have a wonderful way of expressing yourself and getting the point across!

[general_re]

They should have simply claimed that her rights were being violated because the findings of fact regarding PVS and informed consent were in error.

And then Schiavo's attorney comes in and says "no, the findings were completely correct, as we'll show in the new hearing, Your Honor". And then you're back to square one, because the mere existence of the dispute is not, in and of itself, grounds for the injunction - you have to show that your case is so compelling that you're substantially likely to prevail later on, in order to get that injunction. But if they had that, they likely wouldn't have been in this position in the first place.

The law just kind of sucks here - the problem is, IMO, the law, not the judges. And it's the law that needs changing, not the judges, which is something that we don't generally accept that judges are permitted to do.

[jwalsh07]

I'll have to disagree with you here. Congress intent with the new law was pretty clear. They wanted a de novo review. All the Schindlers had to do was give them a reason to do so. But, I never held out much hope in the courts. Her only chance from the beginning has been the Florida legislature. And that is a slim chance because evidence suggests that no matter what they do FSC will rule unconstitutional. So, I don't agree with you that the judiciary comes away with clean hands. Judge Greers rholdings are ireesponsible via the medical experts and the informe consent of TS.

The sad part is there is no remedy.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Makes you happy, doesn't it?

Makes me sad actually.

[general_re]

Congress intent with the new law was pretty clear. They wanted a de novo review.

And they got it - well, will get it anyway. What they needed was an injunction to keep her alive for that review, else the thing is moot. Save some scorn for Congress, along with the Florida legislature here - Congress could have mandated an injunction in the bill they passed, but they didn't. They could have effectively ordered the judge to enjoin the removal of the feeding tube, but they didn't. Their failure to do so left it up to the judge's discretion as to whether or not to grant an injunction, and he applied the same basic standard that judges always apply in such cases - the Schindlers fell short, which was, IMO, pretty much inevitable. And I don't believe for a minute that the Congressfolks who voted for this thing didn't know that - the only other alternative is that they're idiots. Given the legislative debate, it seems pretty clear to me that there was not enough support to pass a bill that mandated relief, but if the will had been there, they could have done it, and Terri Schiavo would have had that feeding tube put back in two days ago.

They could have changed all this, and they didn't, and I for one refuse to absolve them via their usual route of blaming it all on the courts. The moral failures on this issue, if any, exist squarely within the Florida legislature and the Congress of the United States. The judges here did exactly what we supposedly want them to do - follow the law as written. And now legislators want to escape responsibility by blaming the courts for not inventing new laws. I don't think so.

[dc-zoo]

Greer is a "RINO". Not a Republican.

[Williams]

Yes, if the facts support a cause of action a simple affidavit or testimony at a short hearing can justify an injunction. The judges here played a lot of word games to pretend there was no cause of action. I believe they said they couldn't stop the husband from interfering with her rights because he wasn't a "state actor," They avoided seeing any cause of action against the Fla court as discussed above, they had other circular reasoning to say her religious expression wqs not being interfered with. In the end, they pretended not to see that she was being starved and Congress had told them to review if any of her rights were being violated. It's legal manevering to pretend there is nothing here a federal court could address.

In the end, if we accept these judges' analysis, Congress did nothing effective.

[Salvation]

Definitely, keep praying.

[general_re]

In the end, if we accept these judges' analysis, Congress did nothing effective.

Bingo. We have a winner - they didn't do anything effective. They could have, and didn't.

[fxrdeb]

Check the transcript from Larry King October 27, 2003. Here is an excerpt. CALLER: Yes. Does it bother you that the death is so slow? Maybe Dr. Kevorkian-style would be a faster, more peaceful way? SCHIAVO: Removing somebody's feeding is very painless. It is a very easy way to die. Probably the second better way to die, being the first being an aneurysm. And it doesn't bother me at all. I've seen it happen. I had to do it with my own parents. <-b>

[george wythe]

Mr. FRIST. I share the understanding of the Senator from Michigan, as does the junior Senator from Florida who is the chief sponsor of this bill. Nothing in the current bill or its legislative history mandates a stay. I would assume, however, the Federal court would grant a stay based on the facts of this case because Mrs. Schiavo would need to be alive in order for the court to make its determination. Nevertheless, this bill does not change current law under which a stay is discretionary.

Mr. Frist was outsmarted again by a Democrat. He explicitly states that a stay is discretionary, not mandatory, under this federal law.

[george wythe]

Scalia:

[T]he 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

Scalia tells it like it is.

[mikeus_maximus]

While your analysis was good, it, like mine, neglected the well-written dissent. The key is the All Writs Act and deference to Congress: http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200503231015.asp

[general_re]

What he's not telling you is that it's still a discretionary power afforded to judges - nothing requires the judge to avail himself of All Writs, particularly when the language of the specific bill at hand and the legislative record behind it are crystal-clear that the intent was to leave it as a discretionary matter for the reviewing judge. Once you've entered discretionary territory, the only thing the appellate court can do is see if there was an abuse of discretion by the judge here, and that's a hard, hard row to hoe.

[Bear_Slayer]

Thank you.

I'll be watching the events as they unfold.

[sport]

I am glad to hear you say that.