Posted on 03/25/2005 7:55:28 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
Hours after a judge ordered that Terri Schiavo was not to be removed from her hospice, a team of state agents were en route to seize her and have her feeding tube reinserted -- but they stopped short when local police told them they would enforce the judge's order, The Herald has learned.
Agents of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement told police in Pinellas Park, the small town where Schiavo lies at Hospice Woodside, on Thursday that they were on the way to take her to a hospital to resume her feeding.
For a brief period, local police, who have officers at the hospice to keep protesters out, prepared for what sources called ``a showdown.''
In the end, the squad from the FDLE and the Department of Children & Families backed down, apparently concerned about confronting local police outside the hospice.
''We told them that unless they had the judge with them when they came, they were not going to get in,'' said a source with the local police.
''The FDLE called to say they were en route to the scene,'' said an official with the city police who requested anonymity. ``When the sheriff's department and our department told them they could not enforce their order, they backed off.''
The incident,known only to a few and related to The Herald by three different sources involved in Thursday's events, underscores the intense emotion and murky legal terrain that the Schiavo case has created. It also shows that agencies answering directly to Gov. Jeb Bush had planned to use a wrinkle in Florida law that would have allowed them to legally get around the judge's order. The exception in the law allows public agencies to freeze a judge's order whenever an agency appeals it.
(Excerpt) Read more at miami.com ...
When you're dealing with a machine that may be true, but people's conditions change, and new treatments and tests appear. In the meantime one wants to at least maintain the status quo.
The courts do it all the time. If the law doesn't suit them, they just throw it out, or ignore it altogether.
BTW, we need a URL on that particular death. Oh, crap! I'm not sure I can find an URL right away - I'll have to do some searching - I DO know that Mikies mother-in-law died of cancer. Freepers? Can anyone help me out here?
Regret requires at least a rudimentary conscience. I have seen little evidence that Greer has one.
You aren't paying attention. THIS is what I wrote:
Are you ready to ask a state police officer to GIVE HIS LIFE or TAKE THE LIFE of another officer in this situation?"
This is not a "cop on the street" situation. It is not even a case of good cops facing off against rogue cops, a rare instance. It is a case of uniformed peace officers being asked to ready themselves to fire at other uniformed peace officers, each carrying out what they believe to be lawful orders. I know you are smart enough to understand the difference.
In 1957, Arkansas Governor (later Clinton friend) Orval Faubus reneged on his personal pledge to President Eisenhower to facilitate the enrollment of black children at Central High in Little Rock. Faubus had control of the Arkansas National Guard, which he ordered to enforce a perimeter around the school. Eisenhower issued an Executive Order assigning the 101st Airborne to Little Rock. The difference between that situation and this one is this: It was crystal clear that Faubus was in violation of the SCOTUS' Brown vs. Board of Education decision. This was extensively detailed in the E.O. Now, I don't know who was in charge of the Ark. NG at the time, but he and everyone under his command had to ask himself this question: "Do I really want to kill U.S. Army soldiers when it is crystal clear that I am acting in violation of Federal law?"
If Jeb had sent in forces to hydrate Terri (which might have been a challenge -- whom was he going to bring to do the job if the hospice staff refused?), the Pinellas County Sheriff could say they were enforcing a court order that had already been through Federal court, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the SCOTUS and returned intact. What would Jeb have countered with? If Jeb had followed through on what he (and most of us) know is right, what kind of legal cover would he have had besides his own counsel's opinion of what his authority as Governor allowed?
Even Janet Reno and the DOJ sought legal cover for their vile act of ripping Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint from his American family to hand him back to the Castrophiles. Elian's uncle was litigating an Friday order to deliver the boy to Federal custody, and figured that there would be no court activity forcing him to surrender Elian over Easter weekend, especially with his attorney negotiating with the FBI during all hours of the night and a tentative court date on Monday. Little did they know that while they were talking to the Feds through their lawyer, Reno was acting in bad faith, sending some minions out to publicly promise they wouldn't raid the uncle's home "in the middle of the night" when others were maneuvering vague court orders after working hours from friendly judges. After getting those orders, Reno initated the raid around 5:00 am Miami time, not, the Feds said, "the middle of the night."
Presuming this report is true, IMHO, Jeb had to play the hand the dealt him. Having spent the last week getting rebuffed in court time and time again, there is little chance things would be different when he and the state would face virulent legal action to reverse a seizing of Terri. What would have changed once Terri was fed? The courts wouldn't have had an epiphany -- all the minds that matter are made up: She has to die. Jeb's only relief would have been to seek the assistance of his brother the President, and no matter how you slice it, that looks hideous regardless of whether you support them.
Had the well-intentioned rescue mission come to pass, Jeb and George might have won a small battle, but it wouldn't have changed the court culture overnight, and in the end, this might have destroyed the GOP. Like I said before, good generals don't plan Pyrrhic victories.
Yeah; it's called the Constitution and the most fundamental premise of the Constitution is the inalienable right to life.
so you think that we can just ignore a law we don't like......."
And I repeat, that is what the courts are doing. Twice, laws have been made at the behest of the people (you know...the ones who determine how they will be governed) that would reinforce the fundamental right to life, and these judges have repeatedly thumbed their noses at the laws. They are beneath contempt.
well than your beef is not with me but with the legal system, both Bush brothers who seemingly don't know as much as you nor do their attorneys.......I understand when these types of issues try our souls, but when some here think they know better than those actually involved in the case and working within its framework is just emotional rhetoric, and I'm not refering to you per se
I have the absolute highest regard for human life. However the Bible tells us who rules this world. Not the spiritual world but the world that not only condones but promotes sin. You are twisting my words only because you have no argument. Whether or not God allows certain things to happen is not a question I would even try to delve into, as I don't know His mind and neither do you. However, if this woman has suffered for 15 years and if it is His will to bring her home from her suffering there is nothing we can do about it is there?
And from a Constitutional standpoint, I find it disconcerting that those who call themselves conservative are willing to throw out the rule of law to further motives they feel are right even if they may not be
A Missouri resident calling a Floridian a "hayseed." Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot. Not that it would have been more mature if you were from Vermont or Massachusetts. And do you think a "minister" is telling people to threaten Terri's killers?
I know this is an emotional issue, but try to act like an adult.
The courts say Jeb can't do it. I didn't know Jeb had been elected Emperor of Florida.
I am not twisting your words. If God wanted Terri He would not need man to starve or dehydrate her. No, man has decided that Terri must die NOW, not God.
As for your law argument, I have a question for you. If you lived during the time of slavery would you have helped a runaway slave reach Canada? Remember, the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court made slavery legal. Runaway slaves were not to be helped & returned to their "owners".
Oh.
She had therapy UNTIL the malpractice payoff came through.
THEN, after he got enough money to continue the therapy, and enough money that was specifically intended for her future care, he spent 450,000.00 on a lawyer who specificly was hired to make sure she died.
I get it.
A judge far wiser than Greer once had a life and death case involving a family: two mothers, each who claimed a child was hers.
So the judge ruled that he would cut the child in half, and only one woman protested as he handed the baby over to his soldiers. The second accepted clamly his ruling as "the law.".
Soloman then ruled in favor of life, and gave the child to the woman who cared for life.
Greer, however, is determioned to murder Terri.
Heck, the democrats (and the democrat courts ran right through the NJ election laws as soon as polls showed hat their LEGAL candidate wasn't going to win.
Gee.
Yep. Checks references.
The democrats deliberately and specifically broke the law - when THEY wanted to.
Most cops would look the other way in that situation.
Why don't you ask the man that argued for a slaveowner to get his slave back and made this statement in his First Inaugural Address
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
What did the Constitution say at the time? I would have been breaking a federal law which was specifically outlined in the Constitution, unlike the issue we are now discussing. And what did Madison state about where powers belonged that were not outlined specifically in the Constitution? Reread Federalist #45. My stance is this
1)I disagree with how this issue has played out
2)However I see the parents holding on to a person that is probably been gone for awhile
3)the national government has no place in this situation based on Constitutional understanding from the man who wrote the docuemnt
Or we can have Micheal "give" her a cardiac arrest.
There's no proof that supposed cardiac arrest due to food shortage/bulimia/blood chemistry was the cause - merely assumptions made "fact" by the court in a malpractice settlement.
This is the Centzone girl's mother we're talking about ~ the one with the jailhouse connection to the former sheriff ~ not Mrs. Schindler (who is still his mother-in-law)
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.