Why was only one man, Judge Greer, the determinant of the facts in Terri's case?
In most other cases, it is a jury that determines the facts. Certainly the facts in all capital cases are determined by a jury.
Qualified individuals can make wise judgments. An individual can also make horrific judgments. Our society has determined that groups of individuals are more likely to be wise. That is why we have city councils, company boards of directors, and jury trials. Groups of people tend to be "less imperfect" than single individuals.
Setting aside personalities, as distasteful as they appear to be, having only one person determine the facts seems to be the central failing of the judicial system in Terri's case. For the future, that failing could be solved by legislative action.
At first I was against the congress and President passing the bill they passed and signed into law, until I realized what it said. It wasn't telling them to reinsert her feeding tube, it was telling the district/state/federal courts to look at all the evidence again and to make sure this was the right thing to do, to err on the side of life, for Terri. But what did they do? They ruled on procedure yet again.
Except that last minute decision by the 11th circuit appeallate allowing the Schindler's to repetition the court to look at the evidence again, but then quickly denied it when they did. THAT was a CYA because they knew they were wrong and it was too late at that point to change things.
The courts were in direct violation of a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Period.
Agreed....also people don't want the government involved in lots of personal issues but at times when people are committing crimes against innocents the government must get involved.
*If the polls are correct and 46% of people believe this was an act of mercy (pulling tubes). I am disgusted with the society that surrounds me.
It's not that I don't want them "involved". I don't want PUBLIC SECTOR JOBS TO EXIST.
Fake careers, fake studies, and stupid laws all exist by stealing from MY paycheck, damn it, and I want it to stop!
I guess beyond a reasonable doubt only applies if you are accused of a crime. In Terri's case, heresay was enough to end her life. What a travesty.
Ping
They think the courts are some mystical, other wordly, benign arbiter sprung from the ether to mediate between citizens and "the government."
"I don't want the government deciding that! Let the courts decide! Now put Opry back on."
Okie-dokie. If your husband wants to kill you, let's all look the other way.
After all, doesn't the sanctity of marriage allow your husband to kill you if he wants to?
And doesn't respect for minimum government cause the rest of us to allow him to kill you without any peep from us?
Should the government try to save someone about to jump off the roof?
The first words in the Constitution are "We the people," not "We the judges."
Separation Of Powers: The Constitution says we have three co-equal branches of government.
Friday, April 1, 2005
Animal Farm
Separation Of Powers: The Constitution says we have three co-equal branches of government. The Terri Schiavo case is the latest example of one branch thinking it is more equal than the others.
The attempt by Congress to extend to Schiavo the same right of access to federal courts that a convicted murderer on death row has, including the right to a new hearing based on new evidence, has been attacked in many quarters as a violation of the separation of powers and a political usurpation of judicial powers.
Echoing this opinion was Judge Stanley Birch. Writing for the majority in the ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denying the final Schindler family plea to reinsert Terri's feeding tube pending a full review of the evidence, he said:
" Despite sincere and altruistic motivations, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people - our Constitution."
Sen. Rick Santorum has noted that the Constitution clearly gives Congress full control over the jurisdiction of the federal courts, including their very existence. Referring to an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge James Whittemore rejecting a request for emergency intervention, Santorum said: "What we asked for in the Congress was a new finding of fact. And this judge in this district ignored it, snubbed his nose at Congress, I think against the law."
Congress did not tell the 11th Circuit what to decide. What Congress asked for was a de novo review - a full review of the evidence. And what the Schindlers argued before the 11th Circuit is Whittemore should have honored Congress' request and considered the entire court record and any new evidence, not just whether Florida court rulings met procedural standards under state law.
Santorum was right. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states: " The Congress shall have power . . . to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court." Article III, Section 1 states: "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Ordain and establish. These two sections mean all federal courts except the Supreme Court were created by Congress, which defined their powers and the kinds of cases they can hear. This also means Congress could have abolished the 11th Circuit altogether and set up a court just to hear pleadings on behalf of Schiavo.
The Supreme Court explained this in Lockerty v. Phillips (1943): "The congressional power to ordain and establish inferior courts includes the power of investing them with jurisdiction either limited, concurrent or exclusive, and of withholding jurisdiction from them in the exact degrees and character which to Congress may seem proper for the public good."
From school prayer to gay marriage to the Ten Commandments to the Pledge of Allegiance and a host of other issues, our courts have gone from interpreting laws to making them and throwing out laws they simply don't like.
The myth of the untouchable judiciary is just that - a myth. The first words in the Constitution are "We the people," not "We the judges." But whether it be the Florida Legislature or the U.S. Congress, the will of the people as expressed through its elected representatives is repeatedly thwarted and ignored.
The issue was not whether Congress exceeded its authority in this case, but whether it was willing to exercise the authority the Constitution clearly gives it.
One among many easily refutable arguments used by the pro-euthanasia crowd.
For some strange reason that only the PUBLIC SCHOOL system can explain many citizens do not consider the courts to be part of the Government. At least NOT in the sad [Shaivo] case.
The chief executive of the US LYING UNDER OATH and the state sanctioned execution of Terri Shaivo. Both cases have a significant majority on the morally bankrupt side of the issue
AMAZING!!
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)