I would expect the result of such a hearing to be that the opportunity provided by the Congress for a de novo determination was thwarted by egregiously incompetent representation on the part of the Schindlers' attorneys. Regardless of the procedural requirements placed on a judge in such circumstances, most people will be surprised to learn that a judge would let an innocent person starve to death on the grounds that some lawyers filed an obviously misguided plea. But this is in fact what the federal judges did. Those with their noses so far into the law books that they can't breathe probably appreciate the fairness and elegance in such a decision, but most members of the public will not. They will ask why a judge, confronted by a horribly incompetent filing, would not notice that a helpless and innocent human being was dying over this, and blow the whistle on it. There are probably good legal arguments for why every federal judge in the chain did this. But most members of the public, yours truly included, will never understand how a human being could sit and watch an innocent person die because proper procedures had not been followed. And to not only do that, but spend hours writing a decision citing chapter and verse the case law leading them to conclude that this person must continue to be deprived of food and water because her lawyers did not dot "i" number 2344.7 and cross "t" number 4855, as revised. I personally hold the Schindlers' attorneys primarily responsible for the failure of the federal courts to grant the de novo review that Congress had intended. But I do have to ask what kind of judge, upon seeing that the lawyers had totally missed the point of the federal review, would say, "Well, I guess she starves then. Nothing I can do." |
I think that holding hearings to explore whether an impeachment is warranted is a good idea.