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.”
In keeping in mind who would honor Terri's wishes in this matter it is important to remember that the Schindler family has testified that they would continue the forced feeding even if Terri had told them she would not want it...So who to believe?
That point, that the Schindler's would act a certain way, is only useful as a matter of determining how they interpreted Terri's words. That is, they may take her comment "I don't want to die on a respirator" as not extending to the withholding of food and water.
I haven't seen all of the pleadings, plenty of blame to go around. Triumph of process over substance.
I think the point is that it is for those in a PVS-- not those on death row who aren't in a PVS.
Reading your comments from a different point of view (other than yours) I found it confusing because it jumped around a bit. Now that you have ironed things out, I understand and apologize for the offense.
"I am Christian and conservative, as is my wife. We believe that removing the tube is the right action as we both would not want to kept alive ourselves."
PistolPaknMama wrote:
"That's fine. Neither do I. However in this case, there is only the testimony of an unreliable witness regarding what Terri would want. That is the central issue, regardless of what you and I want for ourselves."
Miss Behave writes:
Michael "Husband" Schiavo: "When is that B*TCH gonna die?"
I think that's a bit paranoid. I read the decisions, and it looks like they are perfectly applying the current law that had already failed Terry. That law left it up to the discretion of the courts, and that discretion is ruled by law and precedent, unless of course you have an activist judge.
, making enforcement by the President and governors explicitly optional, stripping the court generally of the power of mandamus and not allowing any decisions at all on social issues.
Wow, an autocracy! Not good.
His state given right trumps her God given Constitutional right to life?
Again, more DIM talking points. The law W signed in Texas was the result of a legislature that would not agree to a better law. W signed the bill into law because it was better than the existing law. Check it out...
The left has set women back with this one.
If I understand things correctly, we have a 'husband' who is dictating the fate of his first wife. This guy is currently living with a woman, has lived with her for some time,with whom he has produced children. If this is true then she is his common law wife.
Were they married in the Catholic Church? Could the Church annul the marriage, and would that, taken along with the fact of his second relationship, present some legal argument for divorce, thus ending his control over her?
Exactly!! Shouldn't her being Catholic speak for itself, and your point about His having kids outside of this marriage, it has to be grounds for annulment or something, right?!
Here's an interesting story.
The execution was halted late Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Terry Means in Fort Worth.
Means was acting on an appeal from Staley's lawyer who argued the convicted killer is mentally incompetent and should not be put to death.
"Judge Means' order was that nobody's ever heard this guy's competency question," attorney Jack Strickland said.
Yeah right. So they worked late.
Hey, don't forget that they had to listen to the media say mean, mean things about them.
Movies=motives.... why am I messing up THAT bad?
No...what we have is a husband who abdicated his authority and responsibility for his wifes medical care to the courts. Decause of reasons I can't begin to fathom, he chose to let the Court render the decision that dictated the fate of his wife. It was one of the first of many concessions that have been made in favor of the Schindlers.
Starbucks is a buck sixty for 16oz and fifty five cents for (55+) seniors in the 12oz size ~ here. :)
Exercising life and death decisions by a spouse is for the benefit of the incapacitated spouse. What benefit is Terri getting from being starved to death?
If she was on life support, which she is NOT I could somewhat understand if heroic and extraordinary methods were being employed to keep this woman alive. It would be a tough and heart-wrenching decision. But this is not the case. The woman is being starved to death plain and simple. This will be the only reason for her death.
On her death certificate,if she perishes this way, it should read: Cause of Death: Starvation by Husband.
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.