Posted on 03/30/2005 2:46:06 PM PST by grassboots.org
If Terri Schiavo finally perishes over the Easter weekend, the roar of fundamentalist rage will sound like the dawn of Armageddon.
Televised preachers will blame her demise on the Democratic politicians who did almost nothing to oppose the political intervention in her case. Right-wing pundits will denounce the tyranny of “judicial activists,” an “elitist judicial oligarchy” or just plain “liberal judges.” Republican politicians will urge that she be avenged by sweeping away the constitutional protection of the filibuster, so that the president can pack the federal courts with extremists and theocrats.
In a Weekly Standard essay titled “Runaway Judiciary,” Hugh Hewitt promoted that opportunistic theme. Hewitt predicted confidently that public fury over the Schiavo case will increase support for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s plan “to break the Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees and … a backlash against any Republican who sides with the Democrats on the coming rules change vote.”
While exploiting Schiavo’s tragedy for maximum impact, these opportunists probably won’t dwell on the most salient political fact about those awful judges who have ruled so consistently in favor of Schiavo’s husband and against her parents. Most of those tyrannical jurists happen to be Republicans, too.
When the Supreme Court issued what should be the final decision in the Schiavo matter on Thursday, its nine members again unanimously rejected the parents’ plea for another review. The court’s decision, issued through Justice Anthony Kennedy, scarcely went beyond the succinctly negative “denied.” None of the court’s self-styled “originalist” thinkers issued a peep of dissent, although this was their fifth opportunity to do so.
Antonin Scalia, who has come closest to articulating an openly theocratic approach to jurisprudence, indicated no objection to the majority position. Neither did Clarence Thomas, whose views closely mirror those of Scalia. Their silence suggests the radicalism of the congressional departure from constitutional norms that was embodied in the “Schiavo law” passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. By turning away the Schindlers’ appeal, the Republican justices were simply endorsing the findings of their colleagues in the lower courts.
On cable television and on the Internet much has been made of the fact that U.S. District Judge James Whittemore — who issued last week’s initial federal ruling in favor of Michael Schiavo — is a “Clinton appointee.” By emphasizing that connection, as if the former president himself were deciding Terri Schiavo’s fate, the cable loudmouths were pandering to the old Satanic caricatures of the Clintons that still excite the ultra-right.
When the Schindlers appealed Whittemore’s decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, a three-judge panel rejected their plea for a stay. Of the two judges who ruled against the Schindlers, Ed Carnes is a conservative Republican appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, and Frank Hull is a moderate Democrat appointed by Clinton. The dissenting judge, who supported the Schindlers’ plea, was Charles Wilson — another Clinton appointee.
That nonpartisan pattern became even clearer when the full 11th Circuit upheld that panel’s ruling. Of the appeals court’s 12 active judges, only two dissented. One was the aforementioned Wilson; the other was Judge Gerald Tjofelt, a Republican appointed in 1975 by President Ford. The remainder, who evidently concurred with that Clintonite elitist Whittemore, included six Republicans: Reagan appointee and Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson; George H.W. Bush appointees Carnes, Stanley Birch, Joel Dubina, Susan Black; and, most ironically, William Pryor Jr., who was given a recess appointment by George W. Bush two years ago in the midst of controversy and filibuster by Democratic senators.
Pryor is the perfect example of the kind of appointee whose extreme views provoke the strongest liberal and Democratic opposition — and whom the Republicans are determined to elevate by breaking the filibuster. He is a vehement opponent of abortion, an advocate of criminalizing homosexuality and a consistent supporter of theocratic efforts to breach the wall separating church and state. Although the competition is fierce, he is probably the most right-wing nominee chosen by President Bush.
Whatever Pryor may believe about the Schiavo case, he affirmed the silence of his fellow Republicans with his own. Like the views of Scalia and Thomas and most of Pryor’s Republican colleagues on the 11th Circuit, his opinion remains unexpressed.
Despite all the apocalyptic posturing of the far right on the cable channels, weblogs and editorial pages, the Schiavo case is a matter of individual conscience and adherence to law. Although the weight of scientific evidence supports Michael Schiavo’s position, Democrats and Republicans alike have acknowledged how troubling and difficult they find this issue.
Meanwhile, national polls show that the public disdains the hysterical posturing of the Republican leadership in Congress and the White House. Ultimately the Schiavo case may well change the debate over the filibuster, though not as imagined by the likes of Hugh Hewitt, if only because Senate Democrats finally muster the courage and determination to defend the Constitution and an independent judiciary.
The notion that her brain has no activity is nonsense. What do you think is regulating her temperature, causing her to make sounds, etc.
This is the video that should be shown on the news everynight - it is even more powerful than the balloon video.
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/ccb/videos/Terri_Big_Eyes.rm
You need Real Player to watch this, available free on the internet.
This is not reflex action - she heard the doctor, she opened her eyes as wide as she could to impress him.
Even Fox news has ignored this clip.
The Republican nominated judges have forgotten why they were appointed. You see, the title they hold says it all. Judge. The very thing they singularly failed to do. They merely looked at the legalities of the issue, threw up their hands, and said "There is naught we can do! All i's have been dotted, all t's have been crossed!" Didn't matter that a woman was going to die. It was all legal.
The Justices on the SCOTUS are even more culpable. They are not called 'judge'. They are called 'justice', a much higher standard. One they failed to meet. The whole damn judiciary failed to deliver. Their apologists on this site say that they could only do what the Schindler's lawyers asked. Wrong. If that is all the judges were supposed to do, we could have a simple computer do it. We have people do it instead, because they purportedly have judgement. Something lacking here. Otherwise, the testimony of her friends would have been given equal weight to that of the Schiavos. It wasn't, so justice has fled.
Time to abolish all the inferior courts and start over. ALL of them. The Supremes we will have to wait on. They are the only ones we can't fire.
Pro 8:36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
Agreed.
I can only feel sorry for someone who thinks like that, and actually embarrasses themselves publicly by saying it for all to hoot at!This poor soul is not only decieved by loads of incorrect information, they obviously have not done their homework but concentrate on being hyper-critical and sarcastic. And then they wonder why they're not taken seriously . Obviously, not a very nice person at all,too bad.
So these Slate asswipes can be as smug as they want to be: it is still a case of black robed executioners overruling the elected branches.
having sat with a dying friend (her husband didn't have a feeding tube inserted) for a month, i saw motions that looked like she was responding to something - when there was no one or nothing there to respond to. very sad. we wanted to believe there was someone still there, but the cancer had taken her brain.. so i'm not so impressed with the schiavo tapes. and there isn't any debate over where the "higher functions" of the brain reside... if one doesn't have a cerebral cortex, one doesn't have consciousness.
my point was that making the argument that one has to have those functions, or have brain waves to deserve life, then that leaves young embryos vulnerable.
having sat with a dying friend (her husband didn't have a feeding tube inserted) for a month, i saw motions that looked like she was responding to something - when there was no one or nothing there to respond to. very sad. we wanted to believe there was someone still there, but the cancer had taken her brain.. so i'm not so impressed with the schiavo tapes. and there isn't any debate over where the "higher functions" of the brain reside... if one doesn't have a cerebral cortex, one doesn't have consciousness.
my point was that making the argument that one has to have those functions, or have brain waves to deserve life, then that leaves young embryos vulnerable.
Democrat, Republican, don't mean diddly squat to me. An out of control judiciary is an out of control judiciary, regardless of party affiliation.
Belonging to a Political party does make some one right or close to perfect, regardless of what they think.
Arrogance is not restricted to one party over another.
re: "fake" memo
i've done a google search, but didn't see any story proving the memo was a fake. although it could very well have been... or not a memo at all, but something "someone" might have seen or been told about... etc ..etc. but alas.. doesn't matter..does it? the perception is out there.. the repub congress and the POTUS and jeb all need to stand up NOW.
are they waiting for her to die?
Very well said.
There are many people on this board who claim to be pro-life when it comes to abortion, however, they are now calling for Terri's death. I will not name names, but head over to the smoky backroom and see all those who think Terri should die, then wait for an abortion thread, you will see what I mean.
And yes, you are correct, true pro-lifers want Terri to live.
It's been all over the radio all week long. The memo is a fake.
"The Republican nominated judges have forgotten why they were appointed. You see, the title they hold says it all. Judge. The very thing they singularly failed to do. They merely looked at the legalities of the issue, threw up their hands, and said "There is naught we can do! All i's have been dotted, all t's have been crossed!" Didn't matter that a woman was going to die. It was all legal."
This is exactly what Hugh Hewitt and all the mumbo jumbo guys have been saying. It does not matter since "the rule of law" was followed, she can endure a tortured death under the rule of law. The "3rd Reich" judges have returned.
Absolute agreement.
I even find myself repulsed by our local conservative talk show host here in Philly, Michael Smerconish, who being a lawyer said he is in agreement that the courts were correct in allowing husband Michael Shaivo to kill his "wife".
In fact, I cannot even tune into his morning show anymore without feeling like I've been sold a bill of goods from him.
For the past two weeks, I've been faithfully listening to Bill Bennett's Morning in America show, which I've discovered is filled with thoughtful people who have compassion on a poor, defenseless disabled woman.
Smerconish can take his law degree and roll it into toilet paper for all I care.
My theory is that those who agree with putting Terri Shaivo to death are one of two things.
They either feel guilty for having made a similar "let 'em die" type decision in their own situation, or they are projecting what they would do if they are ever faced with such a difficult situation.
By saying it is correct to execute Terri S., they are in effect assuaging their own guilt in advance for possibly wanting to do the same thing.
Letting someone go is never easy, and I certainly do not have all the answers.
The only thing of which I am certain is that the Terri Shaivo situation is NOT anything close to the decision on whether or not to turn off a ventilator or other artificial life support.
That makes sense. Puts this in context. Well said.
There certainly is!!!
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.