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.
The point is that Judge Greer has more power than the Bush's were willing to use.
It isn't wrong but RIGHT to critcize the Bush brothers based on that argument and I will continue to do so.
The 11th Circuit Court told Janet Reno and Bill Clinton that could not seize Elián González. They told the court that they would seize him and went in the middle of the night and got a search warrant from a low level federal magistrate who was not informed of the case. They violated the orders of a Florida Court and the Federal Court of Appeals.
What happened to Bill and Janet? NOTHING. They stated that the 11th Circuit had no jurisdiction and that the Florida Court had no jurisdiction.
I strongly agree and have made this point several times myself.
When you have the ability and the power to rescue and innocent person from a VIOLENT and BRUTAL DEATH from STARVATION and DEHYDRATION you use it. It is morally WRONG to stand by and WATCH her die.
Did you post that with a straight face?
Good morning.
Thanks for the comments. I've had some time to reflect on this and I listened to Tom Delay last night. Then re-read Ann Coulter's article from yesterday.
I think there is a lot of anger focused at the president esp coming from some right wing radio hosts and many of the FRs here. But consider this:
There was a bipartisan support from Congress signed by the president that asked for the federal courts to consider interceding in behalf of Terri Schiavo. This is would similar to Scott Peterson asking for a Federal Hearing on his stay of execution. We all know that in a situation like that, death row, his case will be reviewed right?
In this case, Congress and the President asked the courts to do the same thing. But what did they do? They essentially thumbed their noses at Congress and gave Bush the finger. They refused to re-insert the feeding tube, step back and review the merits of the case.
This is revealing and makes one ask "why?"
We all know that the lawyering on the case was so bad, much of the information used in Greer's decision was not available or ignored. For example, did you know that the bone scan, 18 months after her admission, of her showing multiple fractures was not used in the defense of the malpractice claim?
Also, Greer did not allow Shindler attorneys to pursue the reason for the fractures. A fracture on a bone scan could be fresh or could be as old as 18 months.
In other words she could have been battered 18 months earlier. Sure, the fractures could have been secondary to the process of trying to revive her. But I think this inserts some questino about the husband perhaps, and his guardianship.
If Bush had rode in like Teddy R. then he would be abusing his office as much as all of us saying the judicial branch is abusing theirs. He would make this a more partisan thing than what he has now, the appearance of democrats and republicans wanting to know what happened.
We need to ask the the judges of these courts "why"? Why did you not re-open the case. Why did you go against both the Congress and the President in this matter when we are not talking about anything more than looking one more time in behalf of a severely woman who cannot speak for herself.
We need to know why and then correct it. If Bush has some support from the aisle it may make a big difference in changing things.
Now Jeb Bush, is another thing. If he could have intervened some how because of Florida Law maybe he should have, I don't know.
One last thing is for sure. Congress, the president, better yet, Jeb Bush should take custody of the body to make sure that an independent autopsy is performed not from some local yolke medical examiner.
nick
In this case, Congress and the President asked the courts to do the same thing. But what did they do? They essentially thumbed their noses at Congress and gave Bush the finger. They refused to re-insert the feeding tube, step back and review the merits of the case.
This is revealing and makes one ask "why?"
I know why the judge rebuked Congress and the President. I want to know why that was taken lying down.???
For example, did you know that the bone scan, 18 months after her admission, of her showing multiple fractures was not used in the defense of the malpractice claim?
Yes, I knew that. Did you know that the Schindlers were not made aware that the bone scan existed until 2002? It is entirely possible that the defendants in the malpractice suit weren't aware of it either.
Sure, the fractures could have been secondary to the process of trying to revive her.
The cracked ribs I can see. Since you're a physician I'll ask instead of tell; could the process of trying to revive her explain a fractured femur, a broken vertebrae and the sacroiliac? Bone scan
If Bush had rode in like Teddy R. then he would be abusing his office as much as all of us saying the judicial branch is abusing theirs.
I guess John Locke hasn't convinced you of the broader powers of the Executive that he believed were proper, your opinion is as good as mine I guess, but I think TR would have used the bully pulpit like a club at the very least. George Bush stayed clear of it and let the court slap him and Congress in the face without response.
If Bush has some support from the aisle it may make a big difference in changing things.
I'm sorry to take issue with so much of your post but the bill had broad bi-partisan support.
One last thing is for sure. Congress, the president, better yet, Jeb Bush should take custody of the body to make sure that an independent autopsy is performed not from some local yolke medical examiner.
If none of them had the authority to ignore Greer's court orders and take custody of her living body what authority would they have to take custody of her corpse? But here again, as a physician, you may be in a better position to answer this; in the course of a normal autopsy would the coroner look for anything other than the cause of death? Would he be trying to ascertain her life's history of disease and injury?
I would like to think that our president wanted to climb up on his horse and rescue that girl but was talked out of it. I think this has got to eating him as he usually is a take action kind of person.
He did what he did because he's looking at the bigger enchalada.
Does not explain why Jeb did nothing more.
The defendents were not aware of the bone scan.
Reviving her could cause the rib fractures but not the femur and others. I think the autopsy may tell us what bones were broke first.
Hey, don't get me wrong. I wish Bush had stepped in some stron manner when he was rebuked. He could have put a momentary hault on things until she some things could be cleared up.
I read one blog, was it yours? that said he didn't want to use his political capital on this case.
I think maybe he should have. ( see I'm beginning to agreeg with you...
nick
But we have to look ahead and bury out anger.
I have a few posts that I can't get the time to answer here at work, since I do not want to be known as the type who will post and then not answer to them, I hope this will suffice.
I do not know if how I feel anymore about the politicians (Dubya, Jeb, etc.)involved in this horrible event. I respect President Bush, I don't know a thing, really, about Jeb, and it seems I do not know what I thought I knew about the constitution. My emotions are running high.
It is best I no longer post to this thread.
I don't get you wrong I see that you are quite sincere, thoughtful and reasonable and believe in the sanctity of life. I don't bury anger I transform it into wisdom. Righteous indignation isn't wrong it's just not appropriate to use it as liscence to harm others.
I'll be very mad about this for a long time but I will use that to forge my thoughts into reasoned logic that denies falsehood any food, water or ground to stand on. My intent is even stronger now to destroy any refuge for the thought of communism, socialism and secular humanism.
I have no desire to see harm come to those who have those ideas but the ideas must be exposed as utterly repugnant to all reason and logic of humanity.
I see the same arguments defending the Bush brothers' inaction repeated over and over. They are invariably based on the thesis that it would not have been appropriate for either the state or the federal chief executive to go against a court order. All these arguments miss a critical point that I tried to explain a few posts earlier. Jeb or George could have intervened without even remotely tackling Greer's ruling on having the feeding tube removed.
Attempts to nullify such a court order might indeed have caused political and legal problems for the Bush brothers. However, there was no need for them to even address the feeding tube removal per se. They could have accepted the court order as reflecting Terri's supposed expressed wish not to be kept alive by "anything artificial," which I believe was the wording of Schwein Schiavo's "clear and convincing evidence."
Whether or not Terri ever uttered the statement in question is really beside the point. It should be abundantly clear that the alleged statement cannot be construed to imply that she did not want to receive water and nutrition by mouth. The whole "dying with dignity" hype is centered on the shutting down of life-sustaining equipment. Nothing more. The King-engineered Florida statute does include feeding tubes under the definition of life-sustaining apparatus. Aside from the fact that Greer was amiss in retroactively applying the amendment to Terri's situation, the amendment does not view oral hydration and nutrition as belonging to the category of life-sustaining apparatus.
Here we have it. No judge, from Greer to the U.S. Supreme Court, has the authority to order the withholding of food and water by mouth. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution, the Florida Constitution, or any of the Florida statutes that permits barring a person from being orally fed and hydrated. By giving such an order Greer broke both Florida and U.S. law. The slight-of-hand, by which Greer extended the feeding tube removal order to include barring oral hydration is a first degree felony.
The only argument a defense could use to justify this order is that Terri was incapable of orally ingesting fluids. This argument falls flat in light of Terri's documented ability to swallow fluids, evidenced by the absence of drooling. Since Terri was capable of swallowing her own saliva, she was also capable of swallowing small quantities of water and liquid nutrition. It would be ridiculous for Schweine Greer and Felos to argue that Terri could indeed swallow her own saliva but that she was somehow incapable of swallowing water or liquid nutrients.
It is this point that makes Greer's, Felos', and Schiavo's actions distinctly criminal. It is also this point that makes Jeb and George Bush complicit in the crime. I hope that this added explanation makes it clear to the Bush defenders that their stance is indefensible. I wish that all this redundant bickering over whether the chief executives had the right to interfere with a court decision would stop. It is nothing but a smokescreen for avoiding the real issue. Whatever the subtle aspects of the feeding tube removal might be, they have nothing to do with the real crime.
Unless you can demonstrate that there is a single law in all of America that permits the prevention of oral hydration, you should quit defending the Bush brothers. There is no such law. On the contrary, there are numerous laws that make this a first degree felony. No ifs, whens or buts. Jeb and George Bush permitted the perpetration of an undisputable crime. It was their duty to stop this crime, regardless of the relative merits of the feeding tube removal. The word feeding tube would not even have to have been mentioned in any Bush action. Nor was there any need for Jeb and George to question those aspects of the ruling that had to do with the feeding tube. All they had to do was to assert that preventing oral hydration is against both Florida and U.S. law. Unambiguous. Simple.
So, please quit beating around the bush. The Bush brothers stood by while a felony was in progress. They failed the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution and the laws that derive from it. They aided and abetted others in violating the laws of the land. No court could have faulted them for protecting Terri's guaranteed right to oral hydration. No pundit could have found any legal grounds for questioning such intervention by the chief executives. The press would have been unable to argue against the intervention because the law is clear. While tampering with the feeding tube order might have been a political powder keg, protecting the right to oral hydration was not optional. It was mandated.
Don't tell me that the president and the governor did not understand the difference between the two issues. If you believe this, I have a special on Brooklyn Bridges this week. I submit to you that the Bush brothers' inaction was not a matter of political cowardice but of knowing complicity with the criminal subversion of the Constitution and civil laws. In my eyes, the Bush brothers are not wimps but criminals. The fact that the physical parts of the crime were carried out by lesser criminals does not exonerate the chief executives any more than Himmler's minions exonerated Himmler. There is only one explanation for the Bush complicity: They want the pro-euthanasia drive to succeed.
What about Jeb Bush's seemingly valiant litigation efforts? Look at the result! It was nothing but an expedient way to push the issue through the judicial levels, all the way to the Florida Supreme Court. That way it can now be said that the backdoor legislating via judicial orders was fully reviewed and approved by the entire Judiciary. In other words, euthanasia is now the law even though no legislation for it exists.
The whole thing was nothing but a well-crafted strategy to legalize euthanasia while preserving the appearance of clean fingers for the election-vulnerable state legislators. You can retrace the smooth interaction between the Florida Legislation and the Florida Judiciary. The former created ambiguous statutes that allowed the latter to make something into law that would not have passed muster in legislative sessions. The Executive now finalized the deal by falsely claiming that he is powerless to enforce the actual laws that are still on the books. Neat, huh? Are you really sure that you want to continue giving Jeb and George Bush the benefit of doubt?
I appreciate your silence. It is a better answer than yet more whitewashing of the transparently sinister agenda actively supported by the Bush brothers.
My point exactly.
Empty rhetoric, signifying nothing!
Forgive us Terri for failing to save you.
It wasn't for lack of trying.
Where are the men of courage in this nation?
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.