Posted on 03/23/2005 9:01:53 AM PST by areafiftyone
Congressional Republicans who took extraordinary measures last weekend to prolong the life of Terri Schiavo say there are no further steps Congress can take to intervene.
A federal district-court judge declined yesterday to issue an order to reinsert Schiavo’s feeding tube. Schiavo’s parents have appealed the ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
The court ruling concerning the Florida woman whom doctors say has been in a “persistent vegetative state” for 15 years prompted a strong statement from House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who said that the court violated the “clear intent of Congress,” which passed a emergency Schiavo bill last weekend.
Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), who drafted legislation that served as starting point for a narrower bill passed by the Senate, said, “I am deeply disappointed by this decision today, but I believe this matter now belongs in the hands of the judiciary.”
DeLay went further, saying, “Congress explicitly provided Terri Schiavo’s family recourse to federal court, and this decision is at odds with both the clear intent of Congress and the constitutional rights of a helpless young woman.
“Section two of the legislation we passed clearly requires the court determine de novo the merits of the case — or in layman’s terms, it requires a completely new and full review of the case.
“Section three requires the judge to grant a temporary restraining order because he cannot fulfill his or her recognized duty to review the case de novo without first keeping Terri Schiavo alive.”
DeLay did not, however, signal any further steps that Congress might take.
Section three of the Schiavo law states that the judge “shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights” of Schiavo.
But Senate floor statements appear to contradict DeLay’s interpretation. An earlier version of the bill included language mandating that the court issue a stay. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) objected to the provision and negotiated to have it removed. GOP leaders needed the consent of Senate Democrats to move the bill in a speedy fashion, and during a House floor speech DeLay later thanked Senate Democrats for their cooperation.
During Senate consideration of the bill Sunday, Levin engaged in a colloquy, or conversation on the floor, with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), stating his belief that the bill would not require the court to issue a stay.
Frist agreed, saying, “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.”
A House Judiciary Committee aide said that the final law was stronger than the initial Senate bill and that it did require the judge to issue a stay.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) also released a statement, saying that he was very disappointed by the court ruling.
Time is working against Republicans who would like to do more on Schiavo’s behalf. At best, if the case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, lawmakers might decide to file friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of Schiavo’s parents.
Legislative provisions negotiated by Senate Democrats during the hours before Congress acted last weekend appear to have had a substantial effect on the case.
When Frist first moved to take up a bill dealing with Schiavo in the midst of a budget debate, Democrats objected. One who objected was Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who was concerned that the legislation could have an effect on an Oregon law dealing with assisted suicide.
As a result of negotiations with Wyden, the final law included language stating that it should not be construed to give new jurisdiction to courts regarding a state’s assisted suicide law. Wyden did not object to final action, even though he opposed the bill.
Democratic aides said their members decided to allow the bill to move forward once it was changed so that it was narrowly tailored to the Schiavo case. An ABC News poll released Monday showed that 70 percent of respondents thought the congressional intervention was inappropriate.
“Just because members oppose a bill doesn’t mean they exercise every procedural option to block it,” one Senate Democratic aide said. The bill eventually passed the Senate on a voice vote, after no senator demanded a recorded vote be taken.
Meanwhile, Frist wrote Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) yesterday urging quick action on the part of the state Legislature: “The extraordinary nature of this case requires that every avenue be pursued to protect her life.”
There is no way, with the mounds of evidence, that any judge could review this case "from the beginning" in just a few hours' time. The intent, as WE understood it, would be that an injunction be issued so the court could carefully review and consider the case. Instead it has been slammed through each court in only hours, without review or consideration. What a travesty.
ping
Instead of taking this to the logical outcome once they started it, the Republicans have instead taken it to the predictable outcome. Once again, our Republican representatives in Washington have shown that they have no spine.
Thanks, appreciate the links, I'll dig around. And hey, with regard to that removal of the guardian ad litem, how come he can be removed for bias but Cranford gets to stand as an expert witness, considering he's on record for backing feeding tube removal in all patients all the time?
Here's the history of the exchange ...
At 136: Peach: Feeding tubes are removed hundreds of times a day in this country. And for people who don't have living wills.So, I didn't put any words in your mouth. Are you now saying that teh hundreds of times a day events that you citre are substantially different from the Schiavo case, to the point of being irrelevant? Most peole here are pretty clear on distinguishing between removing food and water from terminally ill, and from removing food and water from patients who are not terminal.At 136: Cboldt: Is the removal of the feeding tube the initiating agent of demise in these "hundreds of times a day?"
At 142: Peach: Yes. According to Congress and doctors on the floor of the House Sunday night, they said that thousands of times a day these decisions are made. I had not thought it was that high but will defer to their numbers.
At 142: Peach: It's happened in our relatively small family twice. My stepdaughter works in a nursing home; it happens there nearly every week. She gets very attached to her patients and calls to tell me whose family is letting them go because they had a massive stroke or other medical conditions for which there is no hope and no one wants their family members to be kept alive on machines.
RUSH IS ON FIRE TODAY IN EXPLAINING THE DISGUST OF WHAT'S HAPPENING. WELL WORTH LISTENING. AND YES, I'M SHOUTING. SUE ME. TAKE ME TO *COURT*.
Then I guess Congress shouldn't have watered-down the bill before passage. It did originally state that the court "shall" grant a preliminary injunction. It instead left it up to the court's discretion under existing laws.
This law didn't change a thing. All it did was give the case a chance under the federal courts using the same set of laws that had already led to decisions that no rights have been violated.
Don't blame the courts, blame the legislators.
That is correct. And the permission is unconditional on a literal summary parsing. But I think that taken together withe clause (4) regarding medicane, the statue clearly means that medicine and witholding food and water are not meant to be used as the agent of death. After all, the object is to prevent SUICIDE! ANd what we are talking about here is a patient who would go on a hunger strike to the point of death, if given a choice.
Why does "terrisfight.org" dispute the opinion that her parents are happy with anyone insisiting that she is in PVS?
Note: Terrisfight.org is the official website for the Schindler family.
At this point, that would be the equivalent of a junior executive who bungled a vital company project declaring, "You can't fire me; I quit!"
The GOP has been led into a fiasco, and the best the faction that led them there can do is lie low and hope it blows over.
fair enough.
we are seeing with this case how long it takes to starve and dehyrdate someone to death. it takes weeks. most of these cases about "they pulled the feeding tubes of person X in the nursing home", they died probably 3 days later. that alone tells us these people were not starved to death, they died of something else.
You have to have a bill that can pass.
It sucks, but it is the truth. They did the best they could with the mushy moderates and still have a decent bill to pass.
The courts have flipped the bird at the Senate, the House, and the President. And they will meekly submit to the lawless judges, as always. Meet your new dictators, America.
Take it up with Dubya; that's the position of the bill he signed into law in Texas.
she was on CNN too.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder0903.pdf
I said hundreds of times a day re feeding tubes. Congress said thousands of times a day regarding feeding tubes AND other life saving equipment.
And this is the link, someone on here asked and I'm trying to get ready to leave shortly, about the Court's comments that MS didn't NEED to ask them to consider whether the tube should be removed or not.
And, I will note, that since Terri's doctors recommended the tube be removed in '93, and he resisted for 5 more years because he thought it was cruel until he saw his parents die this way, that yes. He could have followed the doctors recommendation in '93 and had the tube pulled and we wouldn't be where we are today.
As stated in 2001, by the Florida 2nd District Court of appeals in their support of the foundation ruling - which everyone should thoroughly read:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/2dcaorder01-01.txt
They found that there was clear and convincing evidence that she wouldn't want the tube to remain.
They also noted that Michael did not make the decision - he asked the court to listen to both sides and for the court to take his role in this matter of her tube. He did not have to do that. He could have forced he parents to challenge his legal decision from a less powerful position.
If I wanted to read socialist rhetoric, I'd peruse DU rather than FR.
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.