Posted on 03/25/2005 4:33:23 AM PST by ex-Texan
Jeb Bush may take Terri Schiavo into state care
The war over the fate of Terri Schiavo was entering its final stages today as her parents clung to two slim hopes of preventing their severely brain-damaged daughter from being allowed to die.
The 41-year-old has been without food or water for almost seven days, after her feeding tube was removed last Friday on the orders of a Florida state judge.
Friends and lawyers say she is showing signs of dehydration - flaky skin, dry tongue and lips, and sunken eyes. Doctors have said she would probably die within a week or two of the tube being removed.
"It's very frustrating. Every minute that goes by is a minute that Terri is being starved and dehydrated to death," said her brother, Bobby Schindler, who said seeing her was like looking at "pictures of prisoners in concentration camps".
But Brian Schiavo, the brother of Mrs Schiavo's husband Michael who has argued for her to be allowed to die with dignity, strongly disagreed, telling CNN that Terri Schiavo "does look a little withdrawn" but insisting she was not in pain. He added that starvation is simply "part of the death process".
One of the final hopes of Mrs Schiavo's parents lies in the federal courts. Last night Bob and Mary Schindler went back before a federal judge in Tampa, filing another emergency request that the feeding tube be reattached while they pursue claims that their daughter's rights are being violated.
District Judge James Whittemore previously rejected an almost identical request on Tuesday. He promised to work through the night to issue his new ruling.
The second and more dramatic hope lies in the hands of Jeb Bush, the Governor of Florida, who was last night considering the politically explosive step of ordering state officials to force their way into the hospice where Mrs Schiavo lies motionless and take her into state custody, in defiance of the US courts.
A Florida judge yesterday rejected a request by Governor Bush to allow the state to take custody of her, but the governor's aides afterwards refused to rule out further action.
The possibility emerged on Wednesday night, when Governor Bush declared that Mrs Schiavo - who court-appointed doctors say has been in persistent vegetative state for 15 years - had been misdiagnosed. He based his assertion on "new information" provided by William Cheshire, a Florida neurologist, who says that she may only be in a "minimally conscious" state.
Although Dr Cheshire, a leading member of the Christian right-to-life movement, did not examine Mrs Schiavo, he observed her for an hour on March 1. Governor Bush maintained that his testimony was compelling enough for the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) to take her into protective custody.
On Wednesday night, amid reports that Florida state officials were "mobilising" outside Mrs Schiavo's hospice, Florida Circuit Judge George Greer issued an emergency restraining order prohibiting DCF agents from seizing her.
Judge Greer then formally rejected Governor Bush's custody request yesterday. Last night he refused to hold a new hearing to assess Dr Cheshire's claims.
He also ordered the local sheriff's department not to allow state officials into Mrs Schiavo's hospice - but, under Florida law, the governor has the power, without court clearance, of taking a citizen into custody for a 24-hour appraisal if it is suspected they are in jeopardy.
Very long article . . Click Here to Read More
Welcome to Free Republic.
And nobody's excusing Pontius Pilate.
The point was being made that Jesus died by the will of God, He laid down His life for us, Pontius Pilate didn't take it from Him. He came to die, he was "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the earth."
I join in your prayers, Jeff. At this late stage of the game, however, I'm inclined to believe the latter is of principal importance.
Jeb Bush at this point would have to go into the hospice by the grace of the Sheriff, whom the courts have advised to prevent -- by means of force, we are to assume -- executive branch officials from entering. I find it appalling that a judge would even think to order the Governor to not exercise his statutory powers. To me, this is clearly an act of judicial usurpation. I cannot believe that such a thing can be allowed to stand.
Judge Greer has opined that the powers of the Governor are not superior to his own. But Greer has no executive authority, although he is acting as if he had.
Whether Governor Bush has the moral fortitude to stand up to this overweening tyrant remains to be seen. A little story from our history that I recall: Justice John Marshall once upon a time subpoenaed then-sitting President Thomas Jefferson to appear as a witness in Aaron Burr's trial. TJ refused, taking the position that the judicial branch had no constitutional authority to issue a subpoena to the chief executive officer, under the separation of powers doctrine. TJ basically took the position, "If you want me, then you'll have to come and get me. And then we'll have a full-blown constitutional crisis on our hands." Marshall -- very wisely, I think -- backed off, and that was the end of the matter.
Governor Bush must defend the prerogatives of his office and refuse to be bound by an illegitimate order issued by an out-of-control state judge. Just my humble opinion, for whatever it's worth.
Thanks so much, Jeff, for writing -- and for all the good works that you do.
And therefore you are only 3/5ths of a person. I'm sure you won't mind it the next time they draw the boundaries of your congressional district and you lose your representative. For your sake I am pleased that the Moral Outrage that you dismiss successfully stripped that unjust provision from Dred Scott.
In case it is not becoming obvious, there is a big difference between law and justice. Justice is immutable, and before it the law is expendable.
Dred Scot also determined a persons value? do you disagree?
Do we not treat a judges decision as law? I truly believe that you can not argue out of this one. Hmm lets cite some recent cases by the Mass supreme court to create a law that SCOTUS refused to review. If a judge determines something unlawful his actions are treated as law whether they are or not. This is a law whether defined as such or not. Do you disagree?
We agree that moral outrage is not law - but neither is immoral/unconstitutional decisions. I am not a lawyer but lets be honest, how many decision by the courts have no basis in the constitution? Shall these be enforced? By what authority? It is the constitution which gives credence and authority to our govt., if it is contrary then it should not be enforced.
This is time for Jeb Bush to push the test button on this one - we need this in our history right now - who is in power, the people through our elections or judges who answer to know one and as we have seen have conflicting opinion due to their ignorance and opinion of the establishment for their existence.
Congress has authority over all courts, they issued a hearing and this judge defied this congressional order - he is breaking the law.
He hasn't done all he can. He has within his authoirty as Gov. to take her into custody. The State courts cannot trump the state constitution as they have.
He is refusing to exercise his authority. He is aware of the calls for him to do it, but he claims he doesn't have such power. He isn't telling the truth here..
I simply said that it has no place in a court of law.
Aristotle said there are five ways to persuade someone to do your bidding. The first two are bribery and physical violence, which have repercusions of there own. The remaining three are ethos, pathos and logos, or ethics, emotions and logic.
Moral outrage is an emotional argument.
Alert the press, Brian Schiavo is drinking the Kool-Aid.
Point taken. But had we relied only on courts of law, who knows how long all the provisions of Dred Scott would have stayed in effect. You might still be less than a person.
There are other means to justice when the courts are unjust. Now is the time to use these means.
Because it's easy for them sitting in the comfort of their homes hidden behind a computer screen. It's easy to give other people marching orders for things they wouldn't risk their necks for.
As to the rest, what are you, personally, willing to do or accept to make this happen? Are you willing to throw out 220 years of law for the sake of one individual, innocent or not?
I do not like what is happening in Florida right now, but I am not, if we complete the Dred Scot analogy, ready to start a second Civil War for one person.
Are you?
Well, add me to that list.
I'll declare that I'm non-political and have severed all ties with the two major parties, that I have no faith or trust in either one. A pox on both your houses.
This is TOO BIG for me. I'm just an ordinary citizen. But my heart is broken over Terri, and I no longer trust my government to protect me. You guys can play politics if you want to. Me, I'll hang on Bread and Circuses: watching American Idol, playing on FR threads like "Thomas Jefferson warned against judicial tyranny" and I'll lament the decline of our Republic, fully realizing that the fight is too big for me.
Yep, it's over.
If Lincoln had not been willing to toss out "four score and seven" years of law-well, you get the idea.
He's disappointed me. Extraordinary circumstances require an extraordinary person to step up to the challange.
I don't blame Jeb for what is happening, but I agree he looks pretty feckless right now. That was quite a grandstanding press conference the other day, but all it did was tip his hand and make him look like he was puffing out his chest for nothing. He set himself up to get slapped down by Greer. Jeb could learn a thing or two from his brother.
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.