Frist Says Courts in Schiavo Case Acted Fairly

Reuters ^ | 4/5/05 | Thomas Ferraro

[Crackingham]

U.S. Senate Republican leader Bill Frist said on Tuesday that courts had acted fairly in the Terri Schiavo "right-to-die" case, differing sharply from a vow of retribution by his House of Representatives counterpart, Tom DeLay.

"I believe we have a fair and independent judiciary today," said Frist, now trying to resolve a battle with Democrats over judicial nominations that threatens to tie his chamber into knots. "I respect that."

Frist and DeLay, as the Senate and House majority leaders, had led a charge for emergency legislation calling on the federal courts to review the Schiavo case. President Bush flew back from a Texas vacation to sign the bill into law. But federal courts refused to intervene and let stand a Florida state court order to remove a feeding tube from the brain-damaged woman. Schiavo's husband had said she would not have wanted to live in her condition, but her parents fought against the tube's removal. Schiavo died last week after spending 15 years in what courts had ruled was a persistent vegetative state.

DeLay, a Texas Republican, said afterward: "We will look at an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at the Congress and president when given jurisdiction to hear this case anew."

In a written statement, DeLay said: "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

Frist, asked about the furor over the case, told reporters, "I will let members (of Congress) ... speak for themselves."

But the Tennessee Republican said he believed the courts "acted in a fair and independent way."

The Schiavo case was unique, Frist said. "Our bill said, 'let's let the courts take another look,"' he said.

[NewLand]

Your (sarcastic) analysis is right on the money.

[California Patriot]

I'm not saying WE should go. I'm saying some good people have probably left, and that we should drive the purist idiots and trolls away. The key is strong and vehement language and powerful arguments that they really can't answer logically. Stop just short of literal name-calling. In short, making them feel miserable, despised, AND stupid.

I'm sure that moderator Jim Robinson doesn't like these people any better than we do. But if we go too far in personally denouncing them, he'll warn us and then remove our comments. Thankfully, I've always managed to stay within the line.

[little jeremiah]

Well, a little while ago when Terri S. was still living, Sen. Frist made noises about it. Now he's saying the judges are sancrosanct.

I'd rather deal with politicians who say what they mean and mean what they say.

I'm a crazy dreamer, I guess.

[joesnuffy]

The two party cabal strikes again...

There is only one leadership conservatives will follow blindly into the new world order..

Think Mena

imo

[joesnuffy]

For one thing, it misses the point entirely. I don't want them fair or independent...I want them constitutional.

Right on target...

[Nick Danger]

Did Greer adequately explain his credibility rulings, in your opinion?

Greer admits now that he made an error of fact in discounting the testimony of one of Terri's friends concerning her reaction to the Quinlan case. He assumed the woman was wrong because Quinlan was dead at the time this statement was allegedly made. But in fact Quinlan had not yet died at the time; Greer was wrong. He says this would not have affected the outcome.

My only point is that regardless of the "procedural safeguards," this is where human fallibility enters the system. In facing conflicting testimony, the judge has to decide whom to believe. Any judge doing this can make a mistake; none of us are mind-readers. Given the same set of testimony, another judge — or even Greer on a different day — might have reached an opposite conclusion on either or both of the critical questions (Terri's wishes, and whether she was capable of rehabilitation). That is why a de novo determination was so critical; it was Terri's only chance.

It may be that after another long trial, the federal courts would have reached the same conclusions. But we'll never know, because the opportunity was botched.

[wildandcrazyrussian]

DIdn't Jay Sekulow of ACLJ(?) help out with a second round to the same federal judge a few days later? I was under the impression that being denied the second time proved that it would have been struck down the first time no matter what anyone typed.

[Nick Danger]

Sekulow's revised plea did include some new items that were based on federal law, principally the Americans with Disabilities Act. It was a game effort, but lame. And he re-submitted all the original claims a second time; these unfortunately made up the bulk of the submission. So the bulk of his submission was dismissed instantly. Sekulow at least understood the problem. But his efforts were too little, too late.

[mikeus_maximus]

I, for one, don't plan to stay home and complain, if I can support the Constitution Party candidate.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have no "smarmy remarks" explain.

Frist speaking a little common sense is sufficient to unleash a jihad against him from the hysterical who seem perfectly willing to destroy what progress the GOP has made over the last decade. He can join their enemies list with W and Jeb and be castigated for not ignoring Law and rationality as they have been.

[dmz]

There's a lot more prostitution going on in the Senate than any strip club I've ever been, uh I mean, heard of. Just doesn't involve sex.

[dmz]

Mrs. Mith, could you explain how that comment from Reuters demonstrates their stupidity? Or was that Mr. Smith?

[atlaw]

Rational thought is apparently on vacation. One can only hope that Sen. Frist carries the day in the long run.

[dmz]

That's it!!!!!!!!!!!

W will never get another presidential vote from me.

[justshutupandtakeit]

From the looks of FR on this issue it is doubtful that he will.

[don-o]

please let us know what kind of goofy answer you get from sister frist's office. thanks

Got transferred into an aide's voice mail. So, I asked if the Senator was quoted accurately when he was reported to have saidsaid the judiciary was fair and balanced. Left my number. I'll not be holding my breath for a call back. If I get some time this afternoon, will try again.

[maine-iac7]

I understand what you are saying and it has value.
The danger is that it would put the libs back in control and before a third party gained enough strength, they would have killed the Constitution and it will no longer matter - /Totalitarianism will rule.
It took Russia 80 years to get out from under...while countless millions were slaughtered/imprisoned.
That would be our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren...makes me shudder.
If we stay the course, the dem party is splitting in two of it's own accord. There are still some good people in the dem party - and then there's the faction that has been usurped by the socialists.
We need to let that split take it's course...not jump ship and leave the field to them

[maine-iac7]

I'd rather deal with politicians who say what they mean and mean what they say.

Like the dems?

[maine-iac7]

my post to California was in response to all the "jump ship" posts - of which Calif is not one...was just agreeging with Calif -

clear as mud?

[kingattax]

typical.....thanks....Sister Frist wanting to be president won't fly.