John Roberts Discusses Terri Schiavo Case in Senate Conversation

Life News ^ | August 10, 2005 | Steven Ertelt

[tutstar]

A Democratic senator says Supreme Court nominee John Roberts discussed the high profile Terri Schiavo case with him during a meeting the two had on Tuesday. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, an assisted suicide advocate, says Roberts disagreed with Congress asking courts to take a new look at the case.

Shortly before Terri Schiavo's husband won the right to starve and dehydrate her to death, Congress, with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, asked federal courts to review her parents' case to stop her death.

A federal district judge, appeals court and the Supreme Court ultimately decided against reviewing the case, meaning state courts had the final say. Florida courts sided with Terri's estranged husband Michael Schiavo in allowing Terri's starvation.

Wyden told the New York Times that Roberts, while not addressing Terri's case specifically, told him he disagrees with Congress' vote to require the judicial review.

[tutstar]

Have at it folks!

[tutstar]

ping

[tutstar]

With regard to Terri Schiavo, pro-life lawmakers in Congress and Florida are pursuing legislation that would require courts and doctors to presume that incapacitated patients, like Terri, would want to have food and water unless they stated otherwise in an advance directive such as a living will.

Robert's comments in the 1997 interview make it appear he would uphold such laws.

[tutstar]

ping

[Dog Gone]

He's right, and I understand his position. It's a separation of powers question. Federal courts shouldn't tell Congress what laws to pass, either.

[kingattax]

..

[BykrBayb]

Roberts did not make those statements, according to several witnesses. The NYT article that broke this story made it sound like a private meeting, with no witnesses to refute the allegation.

Here is the response from the White House.

http://www.blogsforbush.com/downloads/gillespie.pdf

[tutstar]

It can get to the point of going in circles though.

[linear]

Both John Roberts and the evil genius Karl Rove have last names that begin with "Ro". The same pronunciation can be used for the Greek letter "Rho", which of course is the second part of the "Chi-Rho" symbol, universally recognized as a symbol of Christianity.

It is perfectly clear then, even to the most casual observer, that John Roberts is no more than another part of Karl Rove's master plan to impose Christianity on the entire world. Someone should warn NARAL.

[COEXERJ145]

It's a separation of powers question. Federal courts shouldn't tell Congress what laws to pass, either.

Actually the Constitution gives Congress the authority to limit or broaden the appellate power of the federal courts.

[Dog Gone]

Yes, it does. But it doesn't give Congress the authority to tell the Federal Courts that they must hear a trial de novo. Very few here objected when they did that given the circumstances, but the court would have been on solid constitutional ground to say that there were no grounds to do so. Which effectively it did, based on the pleadings.

Had the Schindlers actually asked for a de novo trial, it would have been interesting to see what would have happened.

[Originalist]

Actually the Constitution gives Congress the authority to limit or broaden the appellate power of the federal courts.

Exactly, while limiting the courts to deciding on the Constitutionality of laws as enforced by the executive branch. Gig 'Em

[Nathan Zachary]

Shortly before Terri Schiavo's husband won the right to starve and dehydrate her to death,"

That makes the rest of the story not worth reading, because we know that's not the case. A) she never starved to death B) Micheal left the decicion to the court. C) Jeb Bush overstepped his authority and made a fool of himself in the process.

[samadams2000]

Bark like a dog John.

[Nathan Zachary]

Who's John?

[burzum]

Are you referring to:

Art III, Section 2, Clause 2:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

According to findlaw, no one is sure whether Congress has the power you are arguing:

There thus remains a measure of doubt that Congress' power over the federal courts is as plenary as some of the Court's language suggests it is. Congress has a vast amount of discretion in conferring and withdrawing and structuring the original and appellate jurisdiction of the inferior federal courts and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; so much is clear from the practice since 1789 and the holdings of many Court decisions. That its power extends to accomplishing by means of its control over jurisdiction actions which it could not do directly by substantive enactment is by no means clear from the text of the Constitution nor from the cases.

It's a pity that the Supreme Court didn't take the Schiavo case. It could have cleared up this legal question on Art 3, Sec. 2, Clause 2 (second half).

[scrabblehack]

You mean that the Schindlers didn't ask for a trial de novo?

[George W. Bush]

Other reporting on this supposed meeting indicates that everything the Dimwit is saying is a complete fabrication.

I have my doubts about Roberts' conservative credentials but I'm not buying into this one.

[tessalu]

I have no sympathy for Judges like Rinquelist when it comes their time to bite the dust. They showed no sympathy when Terry Schiave was being murdered. We can live better without them, for they do not serve the people in time of need.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Federal courts shouldn't tell Congress what laws to pass, either.

Should state courts tell state legislatures what laws to pass? Should state courts tell bigamist husbands they can starve one of their wives to death?

If Terri wasn't disabled, would you feel differently?