Posted on 03/30/2005 12:25:05 PM PST by jpsb
Edited on 03/30/2005 12:44:39 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
With time running out for Terri Schiavo, a federal appeals court Wednesday rejected her parents' latest attempt to get the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube reconnected.
The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to consider an emergency bid by Bob and Mary Schindler for a new hearing in their case, raising a flicker of hope for the parents after a series of setbacks in the case. But the court rejected the request 15 hours later.
Three times last week, the court also ruled against the Schindlers.
"Any further action by our court or the district court would be improper," Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr. wrote. "While the members of her family and the members of Congress have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for dispassionate discharge of duty."
To be granted, the parents' request would have needed the support of seven of the court's 12 judges. The court did not disclose the vote breakdown.
The Schindlers visited their daughter Wednesday morning at her hospice and urged their supporters to keep trying. "I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw," Bob Schindler said. "So she's still fighting, and we'll keep fighting."
"We know that some of her organs are still functioning. ... It's not too late," he said.
In requesting a new hearing, the Schindlers argued that a federal judge in Tampa should have considered the entire state court record and not whether previous Florida court rulings met legal standards under state law. The Schindlers' motion also said the federal appellate court in Atlanta didn't consider whether there was enough "clear and convincing" evidence that Terri Schiavo would have chosen to die in her current condition.
You can say that again. I never thought I would see conservatives cheering Congress trying to brazenly overturn a state court decision either. Or cracking the integrity of the marital unit to allow parental intervention. Or trashing a Governor and President for not taking the law into their own hands.
I never said that was my interpretation of justice. If it makes you feel better to lie about what I've said, have at it. It doesn't make any difference to me. If you have to misrepresent a fact to try to prove your point, you haven't proven anything. You've lost the argument.
You seem to like to stand as judge and jury on many issues. On this one like the ones on this thread I reject both your assessment and your jurisdiction.
Stop repeating yourself it does not make it any more true.
I believe Terri is responsive, and NOT in a vegetative state. However, Terri can be happy to see her family and still want to be released from her condition. The fact that she is responsive to the people she loves in itself is no indication that she wants to continue to live.
The fact is, NO ONE knows what she wants. Not her husband, not her family. And in the absense of a living will, the terrible decision to discontinue her feding falls to her husband, as outlined BY THE LAW.
Funny how the people who have rallied around this cause to keep her alive demand that the governor, the legislature, ANYBODY violate the law and do what they perceive is the right thing. As conservatives, we should respect the law. It has been reviewed by a series of state and federal judges who all agree that the law is on the side of the husband. And you folks, whose hearts are certainly in the right place, fail to see the inconsistencies of your arguments.
And the majority of Americans seem to agree:
Overall, 82 percent of Americans believed the president and Congress should not be involved in the situation, according to a public opinion survey last week by CBS News. Among those who describe themselves as conservatives, the figure was 76 percent; among Republicans, 72 percent; among white evangelicals, 68 percent. An ABC News poll found similar results: Overall, 70 percent said it was wrong for Congress to get involved.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/ericmink/story/B7C7B5180451C5D086256FD400385550?OpenDocument
We must obey God rather than man. "Thou shalt not kill."
I agree, Mav. There seems to be a radical wing of conservatives who have abandoned their own principles, abd are butting into the business of this family.
People are disconnected from respirators and feeding tubes everyday. I don't see why this case is so different... other than the seedy innuendo about Michael Schiavo.
So all that talk about the Constitution and the Rule of Law is meaningless if someone gets into their head that God is telling them to do something else?
The argument of a "higher law" and "thou shalt not kill" are familiar arguments. The left uses both of them to oppose American military action. The mullahs say that there is no law but that from their god.
I am not trying to say you are like either of these groups. I believe you are sincere, and have a good point to make. However it ought to make you pause and realize that you are on a slippery slope when you are using their arguments, no matter the merits of the case you are trying to make.
The fact that the American people are overwhelming opposed to this ought also to give you pause. At least three polls have shown the exact opposite of the sentiments on the board. Have you no faith in the American people?
Because of people like you, a great deal has been done for the Schindlers. They have had their day in court and then some. Many of us, myself included, have come to realize how seriously you regard this issue. I respect that. You have fought the good fight. There is nothing to be gained by attacking those who have tried to help. The President, the Governor, the Schindler's legal team have all been trashed by some here. That accomplishes nothing. I guarantee you that if we end up in a bitter fight with each other, a Clinton Administration will not be flying back to Washington for the next attempt to further the cause of life.
We must obey God rather than man. Read your bible then read a Koran and then dare to say with a straight face that these are equivalent books.
"Really? So if the family doesn't want citizen commando raids and they request people not be diruptive by getting arrested (which doesn't help Terri at all) then I should ignore their wishes? Baloney!"
Why? Your moral obligation isn't determined by what the parents ask you to do. Why don't you answer my question. If they asked you to give up all your earthly possessions to pay for their legal battles, do you do it?
"This argument that if you don't go "take care of business" or "take the law into your hands" yourself then you have no right to criticize an elected official is so ridiculous that it's hardly worth commenting on any further."
Except that's not my argument, are you saying all of these people who are criticising Jeb have all done EVERYTHING they can short of breaking the law? Do you really think that?
"By your reasoning, nobody should criticize the government for porous borders UNLESS they are standing guard at the border."
Not a good analogy at all, since there is no supreme court or congress telling the president he can't guard the boarders. Jeb is asked to go against both the legislative and judicial branch, facing possible impeachment, risking a show down between differnt branches of law enforcement, that is asking him to basically put his career on the line, and even though I think he has morality on his side and he would be right to do it, I can't say he's a bad guy for not doing it.
"Did you criticize Clinton or any part of the government for taking Elian? What???? You mean you weren't down there to protect Elian yourself???? Why, you hypocrite!"
I would be a hypocrite if I said that Elian's family should have laid down their life against those armed agents to protect him, and that their failure to do so meant that they failed him and didn't love him. That's what the "Jeb sucks" people are doing, they are basically saying because he didn't lay his career on the line he failed Terri and her family.
1. Does Terri Shiavo have a constitutional right to life?
I believe so, but the Florida judiciary and Florida legislature both disagree, and so does the federal judiciary.
2. Does Jeb Bush, as the elected governor, have the obligation to uphold to constitution?
Yes, but the governor is not the king. He must temper his views and take into consideration that the 2 other branches both disagree with him. Do I wish he decidedly diffrently? Yes. But that's because I wished he could have been heroic. But failure to be the hero doesn't make one the villian. The villan here are Michael Schiavo, Felos and Greer, and I hope people aren't so eager to bash Jeb that they forget that.
Yes, it matters what higher authority you choose.
But that is not an argument for doing away with it.
Sure, I'll answer the question. Have I sworn an oath to do what you suggest? If so, then I would have to hold up my end of the bargain.
are you saying all of these people who are criticising Jeb have all done EVERYTHING they can short of breaking the law? Do you really think that?
I have no idea what everyone has done. Who knows the situation from the inside better than you or I or anyone else? The parents, that's who. I haven't heard them complain about people criticizing Jeb not doing enough. I HAVE heard them ask people to not give the cops a hard time. I HAVE heard them plead with MS. And I have heard them beg Jeb to intervene. I still reject your premise that one must do EVERYTHING short of breaking the law before they can criticize an elected official who they feel is not performing his sworn duties. Even IF I did accept such a premise, I'd like to see you explain to me how Terri's parents haven't done EVERYTHING and therefore have no right to ask anything of or criticize Jeb. On the other hand, if you say "well, they can because I believe they have done everything they can short of breaking the law", then you getting upset with me and others for simply agreeing with them. Is it permissible in your mind for me to even agree with people who have done EVERYTHING short of breaking the law that Jeb SHOULD intervene???
I can't say he's a bad guy for not doing it.
Well, it's certainly not his best moment. I agree, it WOULD take a lot of courage and leadership on his part to intervene. It would be heroic. Terri needs a hero. Jeb IS in the position to do it, infinitely better than you or I, but he is not taking action. I'm very disappointed. It's not that I want to feel this way about him or "W", but I can't help what I feel. It's like seeing someone you really respect do something that you feel is very wrong. You don't want to think badly about the person, but your conscience won't allow you to think about him in the same way as before.
But failure to be the hero doesn't make one the villian. The villan here are Michael Schiavo, Felos and Greer, and I hope people aren't so eager to bash Jeb that they forget that.
I never said Jeb was "the villian" and would disagree with anyone who claims that he is. Your list of villians is the right one. Belive me, I'm not "eager to bash Jeb". I don't think you'll find a single post by me critical of any Bush before this episode. This whole thing would be easier for me to take if I was a serial Bush basher. Then I could just shrug my shoulders and say "what do you expect?", but when you believe in and back someone or a family for years through thick and thin and then they do something you feel ashamed of, it's just very, very disappointing.
I just can't believe that between the 2 of them, the Bushes can't come up with a workable plan here. What about federal marshals, backed up by the Florida State Police, taking custody of Terri, so she can fufill her subpeona? You think the county cops would tell them and their congressional order to get lost? That's just one example. There's probably dozens of better plans that would work even better than that.
I just can't believe I'm watching this whole thing unfold in the US of A. It's surreal.
This decision by the Robes has ensured the American people that government does NOT have the right to interfere with personal family business, and end of life decisions. And I take comfort in that.
So, what if "personal family business" involved one family member deciding to shoot another, over an argument or something else?
We have laws that are designed to protect life and one member of society taking out another. All of the hollering here about "government getting involved in a 'private family matter'" is misguided, as there is NO evidence that Terri wanted to be killed.
Complicating things even further, neurologists have sworn by affidavits that she CAN EAT AND DRINK *WITHOUT* a feeding tube. The tube is only there because her scumball husband got the scumball "judge" (and I use that term loosely) to issue an illegal order (illegal because she has not been medically proven to be PVS) to put her on the tube in the first place.
So, saying this is a "private family matter" is probably well intended, but misguided IMHO. This is no different than if MS were to try to kill Terri some other way. The starvation/dehydration is just viewed by society as a more "civilized" way than something more violent - but if only they could see pictures of what happens to people when they're starved/dehydrated to death, that "80%" of Americans who think this is just a fine and ducky way to leave this planet would QUICKLY change their minds. It's horrific.
That is a ridiculous argument.
I was not advocating that the governor should have acted with force. What I am saying is that Jeb Bush did not function effectively as a chief executive; an opinion clearly supported by the result of his poor performance.
I have avoided this entire issue until the last few weeks when it appeared that damage was being done to FR (my prime concern) and the GOP.
I apologize for any offending comments and feel no sense of "victory" just great sorrow at what I see happening here at a site I consider one of our national treasures and of the greatest importance to our future.
No, it's not a "ridiculous argument".
MS had Terri killed, pure and simple - because she became a burden, and allegedly, because there was foul play involved. (The cause of her injury is under significant debate).
The only difference is that he found a corrupt, buyable judge (see the Money Trail, documented here and elsewhere) to do the dirty work.
Your hyperbole doesn't change the fact that husbands decide to pull the plug on their wives every day... are they all murderers?
There's a BIG difference between taking someone off of life support (eg: respirator when they are in a coma) and starving them to death - especially when the person is not at immediate risk of dying a natural death.
Food and water are NOT life support. I highly doubt there are many husbands that decide to get a court order that their wife be put on a tube (when she didn't need it in the first place), so that it makes it easy for them to get a LATER court order that the tube be removed.
Contrary to media spin, Terri's case has NEVER happened before. This was not a "right to die" issue where we were debating turning off a respirator. To the contrary, the issue here was whether a husband should be able to have his spouse legally starved/dehydrated to death when she was entirely capable of surviving on her own (affidavits from prominent neurosurgeons said she could drink from a bottle or be fed with a spoon) - and probably for another couple of decades.
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.