Posted on 03/31/2005 8:05:44 AM PST by Pyro7480
President Bush will make remarks on the death of Terri Schindler (Schiavo) at 11:40 am EST.
I don't "need" to look at the president any differently than I am. On this thread I have criticized President Bush for his handling of the situation at a hand and will continue to do so. He FAILED Terri and put her family and this nation through an UGLY, UGLY spectacle. And it was all entirely unnecessary It is one of the DARKEST moments in our HISTORY that with some COURAGE could easily have been avoided. We will pay the price for a LONG, LONG time to come.
No he couldn't have. The police there were municipal police under the control of the mayor. The governor is not their boss.
I believe state law would trump local law. If Gov. Bush had pressed it, it would have happened. He might have been impeached for it (the constitutional recourse in the legislature, if the judiciary pursued it), but the precedent of our govt. starving an innocent to death would not have happened.
He issued his executive order and it was declared "unconstitutional" by the courts. So then, judges ARE the final ultimate power in the U.S. Good to know that. Next time I vote for a local judge, I'll have to realize I'm electing someone more powerful than the Governor, President, and God combined. Because that is the power that Judge Greer gave himself.
I'm not trying to be argumentative. I do appreciate that both Pres. Bush and Gov. Bush did try, and I'm not willing to throw them under the bus. However, there are times when an Executive must look at his oath of office and execute it. I'm not saying it would have been easy, but that's why they call it "doing your duty", instead of a "hobby". The executive branch's power has been whittled away because they are not excercising it. The outcome of this case, and the horrible precedent that it sets, reflects that.
This case is just one example. The people vote in legislators, who pass laws saying that illegal aliens can't derive govt. benefits; judges call them "unconstitutional" and throw them out. Now the courts are trying to keep people freeloading on Tenncare in Tenn., even though the Governor says we can't afford it. Many more examples exist. When the will of the people is continually being thwarted by autocratic Mandarins, eventually there is going to be hell to pay for it. Something had better be done soon, and a strong executive, calling these potentates on their abuse of power, is the only way it's going to happen. Why pass more laws, when the damn judges will just call them "unconstitutional"? It won't work.
This case, when a human life was at stake, would have been a good time for a strong executive to make the point. Now, it's only going to get worse, until eventually the pot will boil over. Either that, or we just admit we live in an oligarchy and are too lame to do anything about it.
EternalVigilance, can you document that the D.A. isn't the top LEO? I really want to know, since I'm presuming it's the Governor also. Thanks in advance.
Also "Bush-Worshippers".
Just the opposite, the judiciary only function is to represent our wishes as expressed through the constitution and the various federal and state laws.
When an innocent women is tortured to death in our name it is up to us to change the laws or change the judges or change our representatives so that this will never happen again.
I should have clarified. I do not doubt it took so long, but I really don't know. What I meant was that I would take the opinion that the inventor would consider the feeding tube life support- along the same lines as ventilators/ heart lung machines and other such medical marvels. Yes the tube provided life support- ordinary food and water is life support for everyone. But the press kept saying Terri was on life support knowing full well that most people think it means heart lung machines and that the patient can not breath on their own.
He would have waited for Congress to write a bill, signed it and when it was stiff-armed by a judge he would have moved on.
I better write in my living will: In the event of my paralysis or brain death, shoot me at least 200 times in the heart, cover me in high octane fuel, set me on fire, and detonate 40 pounds of C4 next to me.... Hopefuly respirator technology won't advance to far by then.
If Terri was aware of all this publicity she may have been extremely embarassed and depressed. I would be at least.
Just so you know that my last post about TR was sarcasm I'll answer both the question about Teddy and the one you asked above in one sentence. He could have used his bully pulpit to shame and expose the mercilessness, wrecklessness and lawlessness of the courts.
His response should have been immediate, clear and harsh. It would have nullified criticism from both sides; both the "overstepping his powers" charge and the "he didn't do all he could do" charge. It wouldn't have fully satisfied those of us who understand what John Locke wrote about Executive powers but it would have put in drastic contrast his position on life as a sacred principle and the courts position of unquestionable authority vested in themselves.
The response to that from the courts, the media and the left would have further exposed them for what they are. That will still happen but not as quickly or clearly and will probably lack the impetus for real change. Change will only come when Congress has the will to confront the judiciary head on and that won't happen unless the people and the President demand it.
RANT and BUSH-BASH would take up far more bandwidth. Perhaps we could hijack some of DU's....same content.
2Little2Late!
Your form is unique. Asking and answering your own questions.
Read later.
I am debate the morals involve not the scope. Yes Bataan was far worse, but FDR was not morally wrong in his decsion making. W was.
President Bush will make remarks on the death of Terri Schindler
Shove your remarks up your backsides, you b'st'rds. You useless, ball-less, rotten, f'ing b'st'rds.
Listening to the Bush apologists here is like listening to a bunch of Rabbinical Jews discussing subtle aspects of kosher.
A woman is dead now. That is a fact. The removal of her feeding tube may have been justifiable under current Florida laws, but the withholding of food and water by mouth was not.
Florida and U.S. law explicitly forbids this and places it in the category of murder. Was it known to Jeb and G. W. Bush that Justice Greer decreed murder? Yes, because he stepped outside the bounds of allowable orders. He can defend ordering the tube withdrawn but not ordering oral hydration withheld.
Is it the duty of chief executives to prevent the wrongful death of citizens at the hands of ANYBODY? Yes. Jeb Bush could have accepted Greer's ruling on the feeding tube removal, but it was his duty to see to it that nobody could get in the way of administering water to Terri by mouth. He should have made it clear that any hospice doctor, any county law enforcement personnel or any private individual would be arrested and prosecuted for obstructing the legal and moral administration of water by mouth.
What is all this bulls***t focus on the feeding tube? It was not the removal of the tube that killed Terry. That might have come later. For now though it was brute force that caused her premature death. It was the Schwein Felos' guards that blocked Terri's access to water, right? And they did this under the benevolent eye of the chief executive.
Jeb Bush condoned this illegal blocking. How? By allowing county law enforcement to arrest children for the "offense" of trying to take a glass of water to Terri. If you see a person dying of thirst on the side of the road and you fail to administer the water that could save the victim, you will be tried for negligent homicide. In other words, the law considers it your duty to provide such minimal assistance.
This would be the case even if the person were a criminal on death row awaiting execution. If the person were to die for lack of water that YOU could have provided, your defense would run against a brick wall claiming that you only upheld the law that had condemned the person to die anyway.
Do you want to argue against this on the grounds that it is too hypothetical? You may, but you would lose. Now, what could be the smokescreen justification for preventing water from reaching Terri's lips? That it might cause her to choke and put her at risk? At risk of what? Death? Well whoopiedoo. Discomfort? Wasn't she supposed to be vegetative and impervious to such discomfort, and would the choking discomfort be any worse than convulsing from dehydration?
And why fear choking in the first place if the water is administered in appropriate doses? A well-evidenced absence of drooling indicated Terri's ability to swallow fluids in small quantities. Ergo, no medical justification for the whithholding of water by mouth. Never mind the tube. The murder was committed manually through the illegal blocking of Terri's constitutionally guaranteed right to a necessary substance.
If das Schwein Felos had put an airtight seal on Terri's room preventing air exhange, he and his goons would be tried for murder even though the feeding tube had been withdrawn. Why? Because air is a necessary substance and Terri was able to absorb it. The deficit of fresh oxygen would have caused her to die sooner than the simple withdrawal of the feeding tube would have on its own. Why should it not be seen as murder then to seal her off from another vital substance that she also was capable of absorbing?
So you see, the state and national chief executives who had the means to prevent this murder but did not employ them made themselves complicit in it. The rationale for interfering -- not with the withdrawal of the tube, but with the blocking of oral hydration -- should not have been difficult to present. Even the ACLU would have to bow to the fact that oral dehydration is a no-no in the state of Florida.
Jeb Bush would have been within his rights and duties to place guards at Terri's door to protect her family while they gave water to Terri. Moreover, he could have enforced the statutes that regulate medicine and nursing in Florida by threatening hospice personnel with prosecution for refusing oral hydration to Terri.
Might Terri have died eventually anyway? Probably, but she would most likely not be dead right now. Therefore, the fact that she is dead now is due to criminal behavior by individuals that was condoned by Jeb Bush. Back to the hypothetical case where the premature death of the condemned convict was due to your not providing the water that you could have offered. You would have rightly been prosecuted for negligent homicide. Is it far-fetched to suggest that the whole chain of gangsters from Schwein Felos to Jeb Bush should equally face charges?
While I'm at it, I may as well state what I really think about the Bush's complicity. It is clear that they both made a fair show of support for the Schindlers. The handwringers among you fall all over yourselves praising Jeb "for all he has done." Let me submit to you that the brothers Bush belong to the very elite that sees euthanasia as a needed means for dealing with the upcoming social security and health care crises. What am I saying?! The hundred-thousand veterans languishing in VA hospitals alone would provide a handsome financial boost if their "hopeless" conditions could be helped along a tad with some "merciful" dehydrating. That would be a cool half a trillion right there. Now multiply this by the vastly greater numbers in the civilian population.
If you want to keep your head in the sand and fantasize that the billionaire Bush clan consists of philantropists utterly dedicated to altruistic pursuits, you have my sympathy. Keep on dreaming because you obviously don't have much else going for yourself. I say that the insurance companies and other mega businesses are delighted with the outcome of this sordid case and are secretly toasting George and Jeb for almost pulling the wool over the critical 30% in the sheeple voting base. I am glad to see from reading in this forum that it is only almost. Analyze what I wrote above and then tell me again that the Bush's wanted to help but just couldn't. I am telling you that they had no intention whatsoever to botch the neat plan of getting legal euthanasia in through the Judiciary's backdoor. They did their part in the charade, no more. God bless America.
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.