Posted on 06/22/2005 8:06:02 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" asked Joseph Welch in his famous confrontation with the pathologically cruel Joe McCarthy. "Have you left no sense of decency?"
More than a half-century later, I would ask the same question of Florida's governor, Jeb Bush.
In an abuse of power that has been widely denounced, and has even appalled many of his own supporters in the Republican Party, Governor Bush has tried to keep the Terri Schiavo circus alive by sending state prosecutors on a witch hunt against her husband, Michael.
The state attorney who has been pushed by the governor into pursuing this case told me yesterday he has seen nothing to indicate that a crime was committed. Nevertheless, the inquiry continues.
Governor Bush asked Bernie McCabe, the state attorney for Pinellas County, to "take a fresh look" at this already exhaustively investigated case to determine, among other things, whether Michael Schiavo had perhaps waited too long to call for help after discovering that his wife had collapsed early one morning 15 years ago.
Mr. McCabe did not seem particularly enthusiastic about his mission. "I wouldn't call it an investigation," he told me in a telephone conversation. The word "investigation," he said, "is a term of art in my business."
He then explained: "When I conduct an investigation, it would mean that I have a criminal predicate. In other words, that I have some indication that a crime has occurred. That's my job...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"... this already exhaustively investigated case ..." Such bold lying! It appears those in the political opposition have no low beyond which they will not go. I don't think Jeb acted courageously and I have no idea if an 'investigation' could even find any facts this far aftere the fact. But to lie and say this case was exhaustively investigated is a joke ... and Floriduh is still too dangerous a liberal cesspool to even drive through on the way to somewhere else!
Both myself and my wife are many years older than Terri was when she was hurt, and neither of us have put our "express wishes in writing," and most Americans have not, and I suspect that even you, at least before you were aware of the issues in this case, did not. My wife and I are trusting the other to make the right decision. We, and I'm sure most people, don't want to live in a persistent vegetative state but if there was a plausible hope of recovery, of course we want that. But then, for most families (not the very rich or the welfare poor) there is the very pragmatic issue of cost: Do you bankrupt your family to keep a loved one alive when the realistic prospect of recovery is small or completely absent? In this case, neither the husband or the father got to make the final devising, it was the court that found that it would have been Terri's wishes not to live in this sad circumstance.
If the husband had not moved on to other women right away
I'm sure that your knowledge of the minutia of the Terri case is greater than mine...but I could not avoid the media saturation and as I recall that Michael did not move on for years:
Many families have gone through end-of-life issues, even when the "end-of-life" is very premature. If you knew the intimate details of the decisions of many families, no doubt you would consider us, and me, as murderers. This would never have been a Right-To-Life issue had it not been for a rift between the father and the husband; coinciding with the time the father did not get a share of the lawsuit proceeds. In the vast majority of cases, people agree; if Terri's father had agreed with Michael and the Court Terri's physical and mental condition would have been exactly the same but there would have been no vigils, no wall-to-wall FNN coverage, no Laura Ingrahm becoming unhinged for weeks, no nothing
Social conservatives, including Jeb, GWB, and many others, squandered hard-earned political capital on a family dispute, while neglecting or even ignoring the very real dangers that our Republic faces.
I know. But in this case Jeb is nixing Mexican Gulf drilling suppressing supply out of pure PC-idediety. Which means we must pay more (hard earned) money to a bunch of Muslims who will attack us or much more insidiously, subvert us by buying our own politicians.
Hey, wait, let me run that back to 1598 ~ we were all quite happy with our quiet little place and next thing all you funny little foreign guys showed up and everything turned to poop.
Brother of the complainant and his wife ~ always a combo to make testimony suspicious ~ we meet in court I will have lots of inlaws and relatives there to support me ~ every single time.
It doesn't work anymore. That's why I was able to suck you and your gumbahs into calling me names so soon ~ you were frustrated.
Now, why is it you are so protective of the New York Times and their minions? We really need to discuss this some day you know.
Whether those laws work or not depends to a degree on the integrity of the judge. That, BTW, raises an entirely different issue in the context of this thread ~ judicial quality.
It was lacking.
Are you trying to lay the groundwork for using the Schiavo case against others in a debate on the merits of that recent trial in Mississippi?
These things are different you know, for one thing, the Mississippi killing was very coldblooded and this killing was, well, very "methodical", is that the word? Or, can we say "organized"? How about "it was executed with finesse"? Anyway, the state did the killing here, and a private party did the deed elsewhere.
There are countries that have a legal doctrine that reserves the right to use violence to the state and the state alone. Do I hear elements of that doctrine creeping in? It's usually referred to as the "state monopoly on violence".
There are so many directions we can go with this stuff it's difficult to decide exactly what we ought to do. On the other hand, there's no doubt in my mind that the New York Times doesn't care about this particular case at all. Frankly, all those evil b*st*rds wish to do is hurt America.
It is you and your running dog lackey friends in the New York Times who endangered America.
"Anyway, the state did the killing here...."
Then why are they investigating an event from 15 years ago ?
There is nothing from then that COULD be charged.
I doubt that. Everyone is personalizing this story by fitting it into their own experiences. They think of the hard decisions they had to make and feel like the reaction to this case is a condemnation of them. But this story is completely different. There were too many over-the-top factors to consider here.
There was a story in Philly about the same time as the Schiavo story. A woman went to court to keep her husband's feeding tube in place, and the children went to court against her. The feeding tube was removed because the man had expressed his wishes in writing. In that case, we knew what the man's wishes were.
Yes, most people don't put it in writing and trust their spouses to make the right decision. But, when the spouse moves on right away, collects money under the guise of caring for his wife who is expected to live a long time, but then suddenly, years later, remembers she didn't want to live that way and wants to pull the plug when he's engaged to another, it's the job of the courts to question the spouse's motives.
In this case, neither the husband or the father got to make the final devising, it was the court that found that it would have been Terri's wishes not to live in this sad circumstance.
I've read everything I possibly could about this case, and the circumstances surrounding that court raises suspicion. The first appointed guardian-ad-litem actually found against the husband, but Felos had him removed for "bias" and then had a guy who had already declared in favor of the husband appointed as GAL. (The first GAL report is online, but I deleted my Schiavo list).
The problem is, state law considers a legal spouse's testimony in these cases as solid evidence. As he was still her husband "legally", his testimony was accepted. Later, after the first GAL report, he brought in a couple people from his family to testify that they heard her make a comment, too. So, in the end, everything came down to testimony from the cheating husband and his family, together with a very clever attorney and his connections.
as I recall that Michael did not move on for years
He began dating not long afterward. He didn't settle down and have children with the first women he dated, but he did date. One of his girlfriends was even in court with him when he was suing the doctor for damages.
This would never have been a Right-To-Life issue had it not been for a rift between the father and the husband; coinciding with the time the father did not get a share of the lawsuit proceeds.
That's where the wife's family made their mistake: Obviously, they needed money to care for their daughter. They say that he told them he would use the money to buy a house where they could all live and care for Terri. That's probably how he got them to keep quiet during that trial while he was telling the court he took his marriage vows seriously and would care for her for the rest of her life.
There's a lesson there for everyone.
"I hope Jeb gives that bastard hell."
_______________________________________________
I completely agree. A judicial execution was commited on behalf of a deluded ad self centered maniacal husband in the clutches of the euthanazi cabal.
Jeb is risking lots to take this case a step further - for the sake of justice.
One investigator cannot get to the truth always - there are many questions about what caused Terri's death.
Let the investigation continue - so the truth will come out.
I will believe her parents over the "husband " any day - and you need to do that too.
Idiocy to you but brave search for the truth for me.
Finding out what happened is the job of a decent politician and Jeb seems to be that and more.
Great post and thanks for the insight. It seems that some here would do themselves a favor by reading that.
And surely those who would support the cad Micheal will equally support Jeb's wanting to be able to say "I kept my promise!" Why they should be in the vanguard of the parade promoting and supporting a full investigation -- for that reason. With a banner bearing that honorable motto!
Even if the patient is not terminally ill or permanently unconscious, it is not unethical to discontinue all means of life-sustaining medical treatment in accordance with a proper substituted judgment or best interests analysis. (I, III, IV, V)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1428208/posts
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.