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.”
I'm glad to note that you agree with the libertarian position over that of the Dems (disregard fiscal freedom) and Pubbies (disregard social freedom).
Our differences would probably lie in how we define social freedom. I would define it as the freedom to do what you ought -- freedom under God. You probably don't like that definition.
Gov. Bush to give a statement at 3 pm eastern.
What I don't understand about all the "send in the troops" types is why they aren't demanding the same for every similar case in the country. The Schiavo case is only unusual in that it's a humdinger of a family feud. Why does she warrant all this attention from the crusaders, hucksters, lawyers, and politicians when there are plenty of other people slipping quietly away from precisely the same reason: removal of feeding tubes?
As this is literally an Orwellian definition (the totalitarian state of Nineteen Eighty-Four defined "freedom" as obedience to Big Brother), I cannot possibly take it seriously.
Because those folks don't have a nasty family feud getting blast-faxed and spammed across the fruited plain.
Really? I thought that it took a change in Flordia law (1997 or 1998) that made that an option.
That is interesting. We're seeing the rights of the guilty being protected over the rights of the innocent more & more it seems...
Thanks for proving my point.
It would be nice if medical decisions were made by Drs and not by the Husband or politicians. What I don't get in this case is what is extraordinary about feeding this woman?
If she is so far gone she isn't aware, what is the Husbands point? Also, if by some miracle she recovered, does he give up his live in girl friend and kids? Either he is married or he isn't.
Whoops I might of missed the Presidents statement, I better get off here...Thanks, I'll check now.
Gov. Bush should have take protective custody two days ago of Terri. The adult protective service of Florida recieved hotline tips last week about Terri. Something must be done today or it will be three days without feeding! Or is this just politicians getting free face time on TV and passing a law they know will be to late to have any effect.
I have to really stretch my imagination to think of a situation in which I would approve of killing this lady. Maybe if they were keeping her alive against her written will, to harvest an organ to save the life of someone she had attempted to kill? Nah, maybe .... but that isn't the case here.
And - I do like ole W. But that doesn't mean I agree with everything exactly that he does.
Exactly. I'm always amazed at the gullibility of people fall for such hucksterism. In this situation, the gullibility went all the way up to Congress and the White House, unfortunately.
I love and deeply respect GWB, but was, frankly, disappointed that he interrupted his schedule and spend literally tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars flying back to Washington for this one case. If this were a genuinely unique, one-of-a-kind, precedent-setting case, I would understand. But it's not, and the people he did it for aren't appreciative whatsoever.
So let's see -- I'm in hock to the IRS. Think I can convince the Congress to pass a "private" bill to get me off the hook? Sheesh!
"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."
Even if the genders were reversed it doesn't make the outcome any different. Husband didn't "dictate" anything. He along with other witnesses, some with him and some opposing including her mother made statements and the Court ruled, not he.
"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?"
A marriage in the eyes of the church and in the eyes of the law are two different matters.
"We're seeing the rights of the guilty being protected over the rights of the innocent more & more it seems..."
It's been to court 20+ times, acted on by the gov and congres of fla, the US Congress, federal courts and nobody is looking after her rights. huh?
First of all RvW is not a Law. It is a ruling of the USSC about a Texas law. There is no chance it could have passed as a law and that is what makes it so objectionable an example of judicial activism and overreaching. It is completely different that this case which in no way is an example of courts going outside the law and just making it up.
Second the actual laws regarding Guardianship and medical procedures are made by the representatives of the people of the states and are all fairly similiar in terms of who guardianship passed to after incapacity. Normally they operate smoothly and without much controversy and decisions such as that made by MS are carried out hundreds of times a day in this country. This would have all been over years ago had not the In Laws gone to court and dragged it out for 7 years.
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.