This is nothing more than sick, self serving grandstanding. If Congress really wanted to save her life they would have done it. They regularly interfere in things that aren't their business and now we are supposed to believe that there was no way they could stop a single district court judge from murdering an innocent, handicapped woman?
Bottom line, Congress has made a tradition of over-stepping its bounds but in when it comes to stepping in and saving the life of an innocent woman they claim impotence.
I have never been more sickened with our elected representatives, every single one of them.
On another note, notice how the MSM still refers to Terri's "right to die". As if she was dying and be forced to stay alive. I wish just once one of these reporters would tell the truth and call it murder.
There are a lot of media people out there who are suicidal or suicidal on a subliminal level. The bad part is when they shill for the Felos-Schiavos of this world. Bad part is when they promote death for others because they think their own lives are cheap.
The wonderful Schindler family put a high value on Terri's life and so do I.
If the killing of Schiavo causes the politicians to challenge the courts then it will be a good thing. The courts have been writing law for too long, subverting the will of the people. Whether Delay or Bush are just phonies looking for a vote, or sincere doesn't matter as much as stopping these runaway judges.
The Congress did what it could anyway.Jeb Bush could have sent the police in but all Congress could do was pass a law and expect the judiciary to uphold it.
Your point about "Terri's right to die" is right on. Sickening how they have to try to convince us the woman was dying in the first place.
Someone on Fox (I wasn't watching so don't know if it was a reporter or interviewee) said today that two policemen were always present "to protect Terri." I was dumbfounded at that one!
If Congress really wanted to save her life they would have done it. They did do it. What happened afterwards is stunning. There is no "due process" in our system that can create a court order forbidding people from giving food or water to a starving person, as a consequence of a civil lawsuit. That such an order was upheld by multiple levels of the federal judiciary, right up to the Supreme Court, was I'm sure quite a surprise to members of Congress. There is nothing in our previous jurisprudence that would suggest that a state can deprive a citizen of life in a civil proceeding. This has heretofore required a criminal conviction, at the standard of "beyond all reasonable doubt." These decisions are a Big Deal, and there will be consequences. |