Posted on 04/01/2005 7:34:43 AM PST by johnny7
San Diego -- NOW THAT Terri Schiavo has died, many of the questions the country has been wrestling with are moot.
It no longer matters which doctor had the right diagnosis, or whether Schiavo's husband or parents had her best interests at heart, or whether the federal government should have been involved, or whether this was a case that was best handled by doctors and family members as opposed to politicians and judges.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Consider the source, San Fransissy. No this does not hurt the GOP since the deathocraps did not lift a finger to reverse the death sentence meted out by the black-robed hooligans. But the deathocraps, true to form, instead acted like a bunch of ankle biting dogs waiting for a piece of carrion to devour.
I've posted a similar response already, but will do so all day if needed because I think finger pointing is not helping the situation.
I understand what you are trying to say but I wish to make a point regarding the criticism of our president and the republican party in Terri Schiavo's case.
You make some good points, but this is a time for some hard boiled thinking between all of us, before we lose site of some of the objectives you raised and to fully understand some things that may not have been fully presented in the press coverage.
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.
Talk show hosts and fellow FRs are joining the bandwagon to condemn the president and republicans. If you are listening to Michael Savage, someone I usually agree with, he is at a frenzied pitch about it, to the point that I think he is being short sighted. I think we need to step back and consider some things.
First of all, 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 would be similar to a Scott Peterson attorney asking for a Federal Hearing on his stay of execution in few years from now. We all know that in a situation like that, death row, his case will be reviewed right? So you would think in Terri's case, this would be a no brainer. Surely these people will look once more at this case.
Congress and the President asked the courts to do the same thing that a court would be asked to do for a condemned prisoner.
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 one more time.
This is revealing and makes one ask "why?" Why did the courts do this? I think we need to know this. Especially when we lay people see glaring problems.
For one thing the woman cannot speak for herself and there seems to be some real doubt about the diagnosis of her illnes..
In addition to this, we all know that the lawyering on the case was terrible. So bad, that much of the information present during Greer's decision was ignored.
For example, did you know that the bone scan, 18 months after her admission, 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. Could the husband have been responsible?
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.
We all think that this fact inserts some question about the husband and when we see that he was awarded money his calls his motives guardianship into question.
If Bush had rode in like Teddy R. then he would be abusing his office as much as all of us are saying the judicial branch is abusing theirs. He would make this a more partisan issue on everything other than Terri Schiavo herself.
He has now, the appearance of democrats and republicans together wanting to know what happened and with the American support will do something. I think coming down to Florida to take custody of Terri would have made him look like he's definitely being political on the case.
I too, wish he could have done something, but I just don't see a positive in any action other than the one he took.
Our government requires the branches of gov't to check and balance each other. Therefore 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 request of 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 ill woman who cannot speak for herself?
We need to know why and then correct it. If Bush has some support from the other side of the aisle it may make a big difference in changing things in the future.
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 Terri's body to make sure that an independent autopsy is performed not from some local yokel medical examiner.
Make no mistake of this. Terri died for all of us. Her death will not be in vain.
nick
Oh those right-to-lifers are so 20th century. In the new and improved 21st century, everyone loves death! The Death Culture rulz!
Out of the way you less than whole (or really old or infirm) humans. Life is only for those who are deemed worthy to live it! We've already used up 2/3 of the world's resources, we need to watch our population.
And social security, well, get rid of the old people and problem solved!
And you religious right-wing zealots, don't you want to go to Heaven already? If you love God so much, hurry up and go!
Do I have to put /sarcasm? This is extreme, but for how long?
Yeah, maybe it would have been easier if they could have put her down secretly. That wouldn't have made it any less wrong or tragic.
The Schindlers come out shining in this to me, even if they made some blunders along the way. Their strength in their prolonged battle has inspired me. What they went through was unprecedented. They could have spared themselves all that agony if they had just quietly rode off into the sunset and let their daughter be killed in the most cruel manner. And then people malign them and blame them for causing all this.
Yes, your "cicus" hurt me, too. People don't like to look at the implications of what has happened. I'm hurt at what has been done to a poor defenseless woman.
Maybe if there had been a similar "circus" in the country that we aren't supposed to compare this to, a major war could have been averted or gone differently.
Consider the source, San Fransissy.
Sorry, you appear to have misspelled San Francisco. We DO have some normal folks her! :)
He was one of the few examples of integrity and refusal to be swayed by the mob.
The problem was created by the Schindlers there is no systemic problem.
No. (Though I do think the caliber of spokespeople matters.)
Abortion is still on the books because it was always on the books. Prior to RvW abortion was legal in some States (17 or 19, can't remember). Roe federalized it, and once you give women the blanket convenience to off their offspring, you're never going to be able to take that convenience from them. Same with euthanasia, as it was practiced yesterday.
Oh, the Dims will be sure to remind everyone about this whenever they get the chance. They don't care what the pro-lifers think because they know they don't vote Democrat any way. But they will be after the moderates and conservatives on this.
Another opinion? Here? Surely you jest.
Nah... I just don't see this as 'bad' for anyone who tried to save an innocent from being destroyed.
1) A Living Will used to outline the actions you DIDN'T want taken in case of incapacitation. It has now been inverted to mean if you didn't ask for it in writing, you won't get it because you didn't want it. Every single Living Will now has to be rewritten. How many Down's Syndrome sufferers will get a Living Will, and who will write it?
2) A guardian no longer has to look out for the best interests of his ward. Simply meeting the broader needs of society is his primary duty.
3) Hearsay is now legitimate evidence.
4) A death penalty candidate gets his case reviewed multiple times. Schiavo's case was reviewed but once, then rubber stamped multiple times. A murderer gets his case reviewed by 12, a disabled person just has one.
5) Hospice can now accept patients who are not terminal. These patients can die without contest.
6) The protocol for unresponsive patients used to mandate that food and water be placed in front of them and help offered, at least once a day every day. No more. In fact, a judge can forbid you from taking food and water by mouth, as Judge Greer did.
7) Oh, notwithstanding that the judicial system failed abominably to properly exercise its responsibilities, the author proposes to give them more duties.
What more do you need? Not many triple digit IQs left on Free Republic, I'm afraid.
Article. III.
Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Long term political results? Jeb Bush was hurt. He'll never win a state wide election in Florida again.
The GOP was hurt nationally as well. Most of the GOP base was on Terri's side, big time. We could not be more disgusted with the result. A lot of enthusiasm has been lost, and that translates to fewer people bothering to vote.
Paradoxically, the big winner might have been the nation. Everyone now knows who rules this nation: Judges. Even a county probate judge has more power than the President of the United States and the Governor of his own state, combined. We live under a judicial tyranny that only the blind could fail to see.
So perhaps this can be turned into a positive thing, long term. Perhaps we will be able to throw off the yoke of judicial tyranny as a result. A politician who campaigned on this theme would inspire a lot of people, so maybe it will happen.
(I'm trying to find a silver lining here. Maybe pigs will fly...)
No, the GOP has not been hurt by this. This does point out very clearly to us that Fed court appointments are critical to the well-being of this country. We, yes we, must not let the DemonRAT machine get in the way of Bush appointments. The whole court system needs overhaul, and this is best done by judiciously choosing the judiciary.
Rush doesn't reach "mainstream" Americans - thats why I don't inlcude him. Hannity does.
Another hint: no matter how righteous your cause, once you start calling people evil or segway into biblical verse, you've lost the general public.
"He was one of the few examples of integrity and refusal to be swayed by the mob."
Time will tell about your definition of INTEGRITY.
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.