Posted on 05/09/2005 5:36:58 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Republican judges killed Terri
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: May 9, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
There's a good reason congressional Republicans will not hold investigative hearings on the judicial homicide of Terri Schiavo.
Republican judges killed her, just as surely as the Democrat judges did.
This is the dirty little secret that would be uncovered if Republican lawmakers scratched beneath the surface of how and why the 11th Circuit ignored the will of the people and the U.S. Congress and the president of the United States in refusing a full review of her case as decided by Republican county Judge George Greer.
While much attention has been placed on the fact that U.S. District Judge James Whittemore, a Bill Clinton appointee, twice violated the will of Congress in refusing the review, less attention has been focused on the fact that every single Republican appointee on the 11th Circuit supported his decision.
The only dissenter was Charles R. Wilson, a Bill Clinton appointee.
All six judges nominated by President Ronald Reagan, President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush, including William Pryor – who was recess-appointed just last year to avoid a Democratic filibuster – voted not to save Terri's life.
All six!
This fact was brought to my attention by Denver radio talk-show host Bob Enyart, who is urging those who care about life in this country to reconsider their strategy of electing Republican politicians to appoint them.
It's an idea worth considering.
But it is also critical to understand there will be no accountability for judges of either party who ignore the law.
Let's recall why President Bush was in such a hurry to appoint Pryor in the first place.
He had done the president's dirty work in removing Judge Roy Moore from his lawful seat as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court over the Ten Commandments monument.
It was Pryor who upheld U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order to remove the monument or remove Moore from his elected office. In what can only be viewed as a reward – a quid pro quo – Pryor, unlike many other far more qualified Bush nominees to the federal bench, was promoted to the 11th Circuit.
There, he joined five other Republican colleagues who denied Terri Schiavo her right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I don't know what the answer is, but it is clear the solution to getting better judges is not simply voting Republican.
In fact, as the Terri Schiavo case demonstrates, the fact that all six Republican-appointed judges on the 11th Circuit flouted the law and the will of the people in this case and the fact that the Republicans in the U.S. Congress fear to hold them accountable, it is perhaps less likely that we will solve this problem by just voting Republican.
I'm certainly not suggesting Democrats will solve it. Surely, they will only make it worse. What I am suggesting is that we have a completely unaccountable judiciary in this country. The judges have become the lawmakers. It really doesn't seem to make much difference who appoints them.
Let's suppose Democrats appoint bad judges 99 percent of the time. And let's suppose Republicans appoint bad judges 75 percent of the time. Can we really clean up the judiciary by electing people who are going to appoint bad judges most of the time?
I don't think so.
I don't pretend to have the answers.
But I think I have a firm grasp of the problem.
When was the last time anyone fixed a problem without recognizing its true nature?
As usual, the people are going to have to lead. Don't leave it to the politicians to fix the mess. They won't do it.
Yet I don't think we know enough medically to really know what Terri's quality of life was. Was she there or not? Nobody did any tests on her this century.
A living will or a medical power of attorney will keep most of these cases from ever becoming controversial. It's not a matter of choosing either PULL THE PLUG or KEEP ME ALIVE NO MATTER WHAT. A thoughtful decision can be made at any point in between.
The forms aren't complicated, and as much as this pains me to say it, you don't have to pay an attorney to fill one out assuming you have reasonable comprehension skills.
Sorry, but most of the Reagan judges do not appear to have done a thing to protect life. And of course it was RR who gave us SDO and AK on the high court, and therein lines the permanent liberal majority.
By the time the Schindlers' attorneys started making the right arguments, and I still don't think they did it with the second bite, she was nearly dead and surely in a permanently worse condition than before. The war was lost no matter how a current battle might be won.
Most, but not all.
The forms aren't complicated, and as much as this pains me to say it, you don't have to pay an attorney to fill one out assuming you have reasonable comprehension skills.
I urge people to NOT sign them. While they are uncomplicated on the surface, the terms in art in them have some unexpected ramifications (e.g., what constitutes "life support?"), sometimes the choices are not rich enough (the model form doesn't have checkboxes for the combination of "If I have terminal cancer, feed and water me, but if I am in a coma, stop feeding me but keep watering me"), and the terms of art can change over time, beyond the signer's control.
For example, in Schiavo's case, if she saw granny hooked up to respirator and kidney machine, and said "I don't want to be on life support," even statutory law at that time held that food and water were not life support. If she'd provided a (now 13 year old) written directive that said "no life support," how is that to be correctly construed as to food and water?
I've seen some model advance directives that are confusing, in particular, the Georgia model signed by Mae Magouirk. I think a significant fraction of readers (at least 10%, and maybe a third or more) being critically confused by that one, and checking off "including food and water" thinking they were asking to HAVE food and water. Bwahahahahahaha.
Anyway. To each his own. We're all on this planet on a temporary basis, and in the immortal words of Mick Jagger, "You can't always get what you want." Some of us will be killed against our wishes. So goes the war.
Agreed, I did not intend to indict only the Court.
Marshall decided that the power the plaintiff was asking the court to exercise, was a power the court did not have under the Constitution, even if the legislature tried to give that power to the court.
Exactly, and the plaintiff's petition was a gift to Marshall, who determined how it could be used to increase the power of the Court. It is my opinion that it was used in this manner, however, only the members of the Court know for sure, and they ain't talkin'.
Yes, it was. I was addressing your ...
They certainly weren't given anything in the first round of filings and, realistically, it was probably too late from a clinical standpoint for Terry when they were given a second chance to intervene.... with the observation that given anything or not, one member of the Federal Circuit Court (even though it wasn't given pleadings in the correct mystical incantation) found an action that the Court could have ordered, before it was too late from a medically clinical point.
I agree, it was probably too late the second time around. I agree, the first pleading didn't expressly ask for a de novo review of the contested factual finding of Terri's wishes. I agree, the 2nd amended complaint was weak in the area of presenting the contested evidence, as one would present at trial.
But since I'm free to wander from the precise phrasing of your contentions, I did. Even if the matter wasn't framed for a de novo review of the facts; following legislative intent as intepreted by the dissenting judge [in the first post-Pal-Sunday-statute go-round at the Fed Circuit] was probably not too late from a medical clinical point.
Nicely said, and I couldn't agree more.
The Constitution is an exquisitely crafted limited permission written for the people by extraordinary men of vision and courage. It requires that we have the courage and fortitude to insist that ALL the checks and balances are continually implemented to insure the survival of this Nation and Culture as was intended by the Founders.
Bump. Sounds like a winner to me.
LOL. Well, the most often cited phrase in the most often cited case in US jurisprudence is Marshall's "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." But that statement is radically misconstrued, to a meaning exactly opposite that which Marshall meant. That statement does not make a power, it cicumscribes a limit on judicial power, as is clear from "reading on."
So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.And in that expression, the courts are subordinate to BOTH, the law and the Constitution. "To say what the law is" does not mean for the court to make the law. Anybody who has the intellectual honesty to "read on" will come to the same conclusion.If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.
But it is no surprize, in our outcome-based society, that courts too will be outcome-based, and throw principle to the wind.
Where is she buried?
I liked listening to you talk when I heard you on that show.
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com
Thanks for the ping BB, but I have no interest in helping any thoughless
or heartless souls who hung out with, encouraged, and joked with the gutterslime
of the WPPFF - Wannabe Pontius Pilates and Freeper Frauds.
Let `em use Google.com, or better yet, write their Opus and follow their friends.
Excellent!
But it is no surprise, in our outcome-based society, that courts too will be outcome-based, and throw principle to the wind.
Now I feel a little obtuse, I never thought of examining this from "outcome based" theory, and it is so obvious that it fits.
Part of me says that the federal courts should have remedied all the deficiencies in the filings and the congressional bill, and part of me says that they should have played with the hand they were dealt with.
My strict constructionist leanings make me lean toward the latter.
I know I'm cold and callous but Terri wasn't ever going to contend for a Nobel prize no matter how this case turned out. Full recovery was never a possibility, so the question I have is whether her unfortunate case left us with any lessons. If it did, then her death was not in vain.
If you recall the Florida Senate passed a law the 2nd time Terri's feeding tube was removed. That should have been the end of it - but no the Florida Supreme court did not like that law and called it unconstitutional. Why bother having a legislative branch if the judges decide in the end what will be the law?
Judging from the nature of the reaction and discussion at FR, I'd say the answer to that is "no." And judging from society's short attention span, aversion to conflict, and the relative unimportance of an injustice to an average person, I'd emphasize that "no" into a "hell no."
Plus, it is highly likely that a majority of people either didn't hear about or get mentally involved in the case, or if they did get mentally involved, think the system worked perfectly. In the eyes of some, the unfortunate aspect is that the case was noticed, and religious nuts object.
No. I don't think this case will have any lasting impact. All's well that ends well. Move on, nothing to see here. Of course, some people will ponder the events, but they'll be in the minority.
Is this a trick question? Grant's tomb?
What a bunch of garbage.
"I can't even blame the scumbag Democrats."
I understand how you feel. I was sickened to realize that those in power in the State of Florida, who allowed the execution of Terri, to go forward, were for the most part Republicans.
When you hear someone like Howard Dean ranting about the horrible Republicans, who tried to save Terri's life, it makes very little sense. Dean could actually make sense, if he said it was Republicans who started the sorid mess to begin with. But Dean won't dare say that, since he agrees with Terri being killed.
Then comes the crazy making of the almost frantic need to get Bush's judges confirmed. I'm glad I'm not the only one who wondered why it mattered. In light of what happened to Terri who did NOT get due process, do we really want more judges like William Pyror?
Until reading this article, I didn't realize Pryor was involved with upholding the removal of Judge Moore's monument. Good grief.
Early on, I realized that the one dissenter on the 11th Circuit was a Clinton appointee. That was the first time around. It was 2 against and 1 for - Judge Charles R Wilson. I thought that was interesting. Now it's more than interesting. It doesn't really matter, does it. Nor does DUE PROCESS, which Terri failed to get.
Only the Clinton appointee understands Due Process. Who would have thought?
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.