Posted on 03/21/2005 11:31:10 AM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888
BINGHAMTON, N.Y. An upstate Republican congressman says federal lawmakers shouldn't have gotten involved in the Terri Schiavo (SHY'-voh) case.
Sherwood Boehlert of Oneida County didn't return to Washington for today's vote on a bill to give the brain-damaged woman's parents the right to ask a federal judge to order doctors to reinsert her feeding tube.
Boehlert told Binghamton radio station W-N-B-F that -- in his words -- "Congress has no business injecting itself" into the case. He said he would not have voted for the bill had he been at the unusual early-morning House session.
Boehlert noted the Schiavo case has been before Florida state courts many times over the past several years.
Boehlert said the decision to have the House vote shortly after midnight was a "crazy way to schedule the whole thing." He said the only way he could have made it back to Washington in time for the vote was to charter a plane -- which he said he wasn't about to do.
(Bob Joseph, WNBF, Binghamton)
The Florida courts certainly agree with that, but they ruled the tube should be removed. It IS a states' rights issue.
You win, I lose.
Amazing.
You are saying that SCOTUS, who should interpret the law and the Constitution, should take a back seat to Congress, who makes new law acording to the emotional hysteria of the vote rich constituency they pander to.
Not only was Robert Bork borked, but common sense is now being borked.
The "medical care" that Terri has received in the last 10 years has consisted of sticking her in a dark room with the blinds shut, lying in a hospital bed in a hospice which he is NOT PAYING FOR (compliments of his pro-death lawyer Felos and in violation of FLORIDA STATE LAW, you know, that law that you consider so precious, that one?), putting a bolus of food daily through her feeding tube (inserted not for Terri's benefit but for the ease of the caretakers), and, if she's lucky, turning her to prevent bedsores. Those costs are minimal.
The more expensive rehabilitative and therapeutic costs occurred BEFORE the malpractice settlement. Once the settlement was final those were abruptly ended, a DNR order was issued, and Michael requested several times Terri not be treated for common medical problems that occur during prolonged hospitilization.
The size of the award was specifically tied to Terri's projected lifespan, which, according to her husband under oath was to be "normal".
The fact of the matter is the money has NOT been spent on her care, but on Michael's attorney, so your estimation of the cost of her care is moot.
"They don't flip a coin, you know. They did tons of research in order to make the decision NOT to review the case."
I don't think that is true in this case. A single justice made the decision. This was done very quickly.
Unfortunately I don't believe much of those claims. They appear mainly to be propaganda without any basis in truth such as the lie that she is the victim of attempted murder.
WHY would a lawyer pay for the hospice? It is NOT cheap and costs tens of thousands of dollars a year for even the most minimal care. Even a hotel room at $100 per night would be $36.5 grand. What lawyer is going to do that?
I find it disgraceful that there was a malpractice award here to begin with. Such decisions are the principle reasons why health care is becoming unaffordable and are the means by which the lawyers are destroying the ability of ordinary people to pay for it. Prolonging lives well past the point of no return is another reason health care is being priced out of our reach. There simply is not an infinite amount available to spend on such cases.
With no cerebral cortex there is no person just a lump of flesh with a semblance of life.
Not much credence, depending on which side of the argument you're on. Be that as it may, you will not see, anywhere on this or any other thread, where I have made these accusations. I used only the FACTS as we know them: he has not used the money awarded to him in the malpractice case for the purpose they were intended, and he is openly living and has fathered children with another woman not his wife. It is not extreme to believe these two facts alone put into question his 'custodial' rights to determine Terri's fate.
If you disagree, well, I leave it at that...
The husband tried to kill her, is a beast, a monster, heartless who SOMEHOW manages to get the most favorable judges corrupt, evil power mongers which the corrupt, evil, demented, appeals courts support including the Florida SC and the USSC.
Not judges, one judge - I refer you to Nick Danger's excellent post, most specifically this: It the job of judges to decide these things, and this judge decided — based on the word of the husband — that it is a "fact" that Terri would have preferred death in this circumstance.
So far as I know, once a judge has determined this to be a "fact," the appellate courts do not ever look at it again. So all appeals proceed on the basis that it is a "fact" that Terri Schiavo would prefer death here.
Get that? Once one judge, Judge Greer, decided to ignore evidence presented to him, the other courts did not go back and review the facts but relied solely on his judgment. For you to imply that scores of judges have studied the facts of this case exhaustively and came to the same conclusion is totally disingenuous.
I just don't buy any of this. NOR do I believe the medical authorities to be WANTING to "kill" Terri but that she has been gone for well over a decade.
You can believe what you want, and you will, even if it means denying the facts in front of your face.
That single justice had an army of law clerks doing the research, this sole justice then made a decision that was done with input and thought sufficient to the highly charged emotional atmosphere surrounding the case.
This sole justice did not flip a coin.
No I deny no facts in front of my face merely don't accept as gospel what those who believe this lady is still truly alive want me to believe. It isn't the facts that cause me problems but the hysteria and hatred exhibited by some in this matter. Some sound as if THEY are ready to personally kill Michael.
Decisions such as this are made hundreds of times every day in this country regarding people in similiar conditions. Were it not for this wild fear of death which seems to be rampant this would not even be a concern. Most believers in Christianity do not cling hopelessly to a semblence of life when one of far greater splendor awaits us in the next world. That is what I believe awaits Terri.
He's not paying for it, he is on the board of directors there - it's a perk.
It is NOT cheap and costs tens of thousands of dollars a year for even the most minimal care. Even a hotel room at $100 per night would be $36.5 grand. What lawyer is going to do that?
My dear - you need an education. Do you know what a hospice is? Do you have any idea? A hospice is NOT a health care facility. It is a place where those who are TERMINALLY ILL are sent to live out the last days of their life with MINIMAL CARE. That's exactly why putting Terri there in the first place was violating that wonderful Florida law that you claim to honor. Do a little research, will ya?
Unfortunately I don't believe much of those claims. They appear mainly to be propaganda without any basis in truth such as the lie that she is the victim of attempted murder.
You don't believe that Michael has used the malpractice settlement to pay Felos? You don't believe that Michael is living with and has fathered children with another woman not his wife? What planet are you living on? Guess denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
"This sole justice did not flip a coin."
A single person is too biased.
But I'm not making those arguments, and you are discussing with me, so why don't you address my questions and comments as I am yours?
"That single justice had an army of law clerks doing the research, this sole justice then made a decision that was done with input and thought sufficient to the highly charged emotional atmosphere surrounding the case."
If it wasn't Scalia or Thomas, I don't trust their logic or that of their staffs. The more blather I hear to justify(legally speaking) this act of inhumanity, the more I am firmly convinced that the system is hopelessly broke and those that support it are fools.
But you're willing to accept as gospel her husband, who as I've pointed out twice before has obvious conflicts, making a dubious statement about Terri's wishes which he miraculously remembers a full 7 years after the incident, and coincidently after he is awarded malpractice $$$ for her care.
And are you really that naive to believe that there are not doctors who actively promote the so-called "right to die" of patients who require more than the average care than they care to administer?
Again, I'll let your statements here speak for themselves.
I said this on another court - and I'll repeat it here:
"The biggest problem I see is that the PUBLIC does not know that the Constitution specifically gives REGULATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE COURTS .... TO CONGRESS. The founders knew judges would be appointed NOT ELECTED - and the final judgement must rest with people who are elected representatives of the people."
The judge who is sitting on this case was just appointed to that position in 1990 - because a NEW COURT WAS CREATED BY CONGRESS.
"The democrats DON'T WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW about Congress' authority over the courts .. because if the public knows that the USSC IS NOT the final arbitor of THE LAW - then the democrats cannot get their agenda implemented - NO WONDER THEY'RE MAD!! LOL!!"
Boehlert is my congressman and he sucks. Yes, he is a RINO supreme. We never vote for him.
The Judiciary (SCOTUS) is one of the branches of government, not the controlling or dominant one. In our system of checks and balances, Congress can legislate controls over the judiciary, including amending the Constitution.
In terms of legitimacy, I trust elected representatives (Congress) more than nine appointed for life black robes to reflect the will of the people. Congress needs to do more to make the Judiciary more responsible and accountable. By default, the Courts have assumed greater powers, including quasi legistlative authority. SCOTUS is not the final word nor are their opinions consistent historically. They even overrule themselves, e.g., Plessy versus Ferguson.
Then, according to that belief, 9 justices together are 9 biased justices.
Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Arlen Specter, Cynthia McKinney, John Kerry. . .
Wow! That's quite a statement you made.
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.