Why Schiavo's Parents Didn't Have a Case

latimes.com ^ | March 25, 2005 | Andrew Cohen

[Destro]

March 25, 2005

COMMENTARY
Why Schiavo's Parents Didn't Have a Case

By Andrew Cohen, Andrew Cohen is CBS News' legal analyst.

Terri Schiavo's parents did not lose their federal case because they didn't try hard enough. They didn't lose their case because everyone conspired against them. They didn't lose it because Congress ticked off the judiciary over the weekend with its over-the-top custom-made legislation. They didn't lose it for lack of money or because they failed to file a court paper on time. They didn't lose it because the laws are unfair or because bureaucrats sometimes can be arbitrary and capricious.

The Schindlers lost their case and their cause — and soon probably their daughter — because in the end they were making claims the legal system has never been able or willing to recognize. They lost because they long ago ran out of good arguments to make — those arguments having been reasonably rejected by state judge after judge — and thus were left with only lame ones. And they lost because in every case someone has to win and someone has to lose. That's the way it works in our system of government. It isn't pretty, and sometimes it's unfair. But it's reality.

Especially during this final round of review, orchestrated by Congress' extraordinary attempt at a "do-over" for the couple, Schiavo's parents lost appeal after appeal specifically because they were asking the federal courts to declare that their constitutional rights had been violated by the Florida state court rulings in the case. They were arguing, in other words, thanks in part to their custom-made congressional legislation, that the federal Constitution gave them the right as losers in state court to get a new, full-blown trial in federal court.

[Destro]

If you ponder that notion you will realize just how astounding it is. If accepted, it would have meant the end of state courts as we know them. No decision at the state level ever would be final, because every losing litigant at the state court level would be able to walk into federal court and declare a federal constitutional violation. State court trials thus would become like practice sessions and the federal courts, which are supposed to be of "limited jurisdiction," resolving only certain kinds of disputes, would become free-for-alls.

[txradioguy]

*sigh* Destro we've agreed on many issues in the past but this is one we're going to have to agree to disagree on.

[Destro]

If we were to open the doors of federal courts to every losing side in a guardianship case, or a child custody case, or any other matter traditionally left to state courts, we would be changing the very nature of the balance between federal power and states' rights. And we would be doing so at the request of politicians who have spent a generation trumpeting states' rights over the intrusion of federal power.

[goldstategop]

Except liberals never accept the finality of state court rulings in capital punishment cases. They insist on de novo federal judicial review of these proceedings. So why are Schiavos parents denied the same advantage? They'd be on stronger ground if they were consistent but they're not.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Destro]

You can disagree - but come up with an argument based on the law and a traditional conservative understaning of it. What I disagree with is the Federal intrusion more so than anything - I was pretty much avoiding this issue until the fiasco in Congress happened.

If I have to keep basjing conservatives over the head till they remember their principles like State's Rights then so be it.

[goldstategop]

Hogwash. The reverse is true. The party screaming loudest for hands-off in the particular case of the Schiavos is the same party that has successfully federalized every other local and state case. What gives?

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[txradioguy]

The very same democrats who wanna say "the courts have ruled it's final" are the same ones who IMHO will complain about how the courts "stole" the 2000 election.

THey are ONLY for the courts as a final say so if it's a ruling that goes in their favor.

[Destro]

I guess you did not click the link for the full article.

In capital cases, for example, the law requires a federal review of a state court death penalty conviction. In such cases, the government is seeking to kill someone on behalf of the people. In the Schiavo case, a private guardian (a husband) was seeking permission to fulfill his wife's wishes, as determined by the state court of Florida. Yes, there is a difference, one that has been recognized in law and tradition.

[Kozak]

And we would be doing so at the request of politicians who have spent a generation trumpeting states' rights over the intrusion of federal power.

Ah. But when the left wants to overturn the will of the people, Federalism suddenly vanishes. Abortion. Gay Marriage. Death penalty for minors. But try to uphold a fundamental right like say, giving water to helpless person, a violation of basic rights if I ever saw one, THAT the federal government has no oversight of.

[Destro]

That sounds like the Schindler side on this issue - two wrongs don't make a right.

[txradioguy]

"If I have to keep basjing conservatives over the head till they remember their principles like State's Rights then so be it."

So should "states rights" trump God's law?

[nickcarraway]

How can this be a states' rights issue when Judge Greer is going against Florida state law, and making new presidence. Understand that Judge Greer is making new law and going against existing Florida law. According to your claim, Judge Greer is the state of Florida, and the existing laws, the governor, current and former legislature, and the citizens aren't the state of Florida. Judge Greer doesn't have the right to unilaterally change state law. That is why your states' rights argument is bogus.

[Lexinom]

They lost because they long ago ran out of good arguments to make

The argument is simple: taking innocent human life is wrong.

That we've managed through sophistry and red tape to obfuscate what every human being knows from childhood in his heart to be right and wrong speaks volumes.

[Destro]

And your point is what? Since they stand for that we will do so now also? Two wrongs make a right? Is that your point? They do one bad thing so we also get to do a bad thing as well????

[Destro]

emotional hyperbole.

[goldstategop]

No. If he sought permission to kill his wife, that would be one thing. Instead he got the court to do it FOR him. Its a novel departure from law and tradition. That's what has people upset along with the courts refusal to take a look at an act of judicially mandated homocide.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[kenth]

At some point one has to consider individual rights over that of the state.

[Lexinom]

No. Self-evident truth.

[goldstategop]

Its easier to hide a horrible act behind euphemisms and then pretend your hands are tied by an ex deus machina. It all sounds familiar.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)