Odds are highest court won't hear Terri's Law

St. Petersburg Times online ^ | September 25, 2004 | WILLIAM R. LEVESQUE, Times Staff Writer

[KZele]

The ruling in the Schiavo case lacks federal issues that would concern the U.S. Supreme Court, legal experts say.

[Sunshine55]

Lacks federal issues my @$$...

[Congressman Billybob]

There IS a major federal issue in this case. The US Constitution guarantees to every state a "republican" form of government. One aspect of that is that legislatures write laws and courts enforce them, but it is not the duty of courts to write or rewrite laws.

SO, if the Court chooses to take this case, it has a valid basis to do so. However, it remains true that the US Supreme Court takes only about half of 1% of the cases presented. So it will probably not take this case.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Kerry Hasn't Read a History Book"

If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.

[Publius Valerius]

And just out of curiousity, in the entire history of the country, how many cases have been decided on the Article IV guarantee of Republicanism? Approximately...zero?

[KZele]

The objective of the Constitution was to create a system of government that would control men's lust for power and safeguard individual liberty. To prevent concentrations of power, the framers established a system of checks and balances. Authority was divided between the federal and state governments and was further divided among the three branches of the federal government.

The framers of the Constitution hoped to weaken the basis of monarchical society. They wanted to eliminate the forms of corruption, such as nepotism and the holding of multiple public offices, that characterized the British government.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=288

[Congressman Billybob]

You are quite right that the US SC has never used the "republican" guarantee as the basis of a decision. It has tap danced around it in several cases. It would, in my view, be healthy if the Court took up this clause and used it.

However, the present Court has no institutional objection to "government by judge" which is on of the reasons why I don't expect this Court to touch this case with a 10-footbarge poll. I didn't propose that basis because I expect it to be used, but because I think it should be used.

Billybob

[Pegita]

Man plans ... God decides.

May He yet open the door to this wounded woman's prison and give her over to the love and care of her family for the remainder of her natural life.

[Publius Valerius]

I don't disagree, but this seems to contradict your position on Article III's "regulations and exceptions" clause that you were arguing the other day.

[Flux Capacitor]

----The US Constitution guarantees to every state a "republican" form of government. One aspect of that is that legislatures write laws and courts enforce them, but it is not the duty of courts to write or rewrite laws.----

That's true, but if every state-level legal issue were eligible for U.S. Supreme Court hearing, there wouldn't be much point in having state supreme courts. The U.S. Supremes simply don't have a dog in this fight -- it's a question of state legislation that falls within the purview of the state supreme court, and no farther. If the Florida supremes are wrong, then it's up to the state of Florida to take care of it, not SCOTUS.

Which is why Congress is going to have to start making some serious decisions about exactly what this country is going to tolerate when it comes to questions of euthanasia. If Florida decides to pull the plug on Terri Schiavo -- a woman whose death is desired by her husband because she has become an inconvenience to him -- there's nothing, legally, to which the Supreme Court can point as a way of telling the state that it can't. And that holds some very frightening implications for the future.

-Dan

[Congressman Billybob]

If the US SC exercised appellate jurisdiction based on the "republican" guarantee, that would NOT be part of the Court's original jurisdiction. Therefore, if Congress disliked what the Court had done, it could withdraw jurisdiction.

No contradiction between yesterday's argument and today's.

Billybob

[Alissa]

We need to start working on the liberal judiciary as well as the liberal media. These Democratic appointed judges are way out of line. Since when can one branch veto two other branches of government - I thought there was suppose to be checks and balances.

[Publius Valerius]

No no, what I meant was that today you seem to be favoring the text of the document over the prevailing interpretation given to it by the court, while the other day you were favoring the prevailing interpretation of the document over the actual text.

That's what I meant.

[KZele]

We need to start working on something. This is way over the line! What does anyone suggest. We don't have to much time, I estimate it's now less than 10 days. In fact, Govenor Bush has not yet decided what he is going to do. I suggest we start there. Thoughts anyone?

[Congressman Billybob]

I always prefer the text of the Constitution over the "prevailing interpretation." Concerning Congressional control over jurisdiction, the courts have acknowledged that, but before the courts addressed it, the Framers put that language in the Constitution for specific reasons. And those reasons are revealed in the debates at the Convention and in the ratifying conventions in the various states.

I would support the idea that Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts even if the US SC had consistently ruled against it. Court rulings do not, and cannot, change the language of the Constitution. Only the people, by exercising their power of amendment, can do that.

Billybob

[Publius Valerius]

Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts even if the US SC had consistently ruled against it.

Limit or eliminate? I agree that Congress, if the circumstances are right, can limit jurisdiction of federal courts, but it cannot eliminate that jurisdiction without a constitutional amendment--as you suggested.

Article III speaks in mandatory terms--the judicial power shall be vested. The judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under this constitution.

This language is clear. Congress can limit the jurisdiction of inferior federal courts, and it can limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but it can't eliminate federal jurisdiction without a constitutional amendment.

[KZele]

You and Billybob seem to be well versed in this subject. How can you apply this knowledge to help another human being from DYING?

[KZele]

Strange, isn't it, that nobody has a comment when one trys to debate the real issue at stake. I truly believe, that collectively, we CAN do something to help this woman. I certainly want to try, before it happens to me or my loved ones.