Boehlert: Congress wrong to be involved in Schiavo case

WSTM.com ^ | 3/21/05 | Bob Joseph

[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)

[Trust but Verify]

I'm in agreement with you. If being consistent in our beliefs about states's rights makes us members of the Death Cult, so be it. I've been called worse.

[soundandvision]

From the US Constitution, Article. III.,Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

All the Congress did was get Terri's case before a federal judge.

That's fair enough; but Congress made law to circumvent Florida law.

Why are so many interested in seeing her die a slow painful death?

I won't dignify that with a response.

[goldstategop]

Au contraire. We simply restrained a lawless court that exceeded authority. To do that, we had to give Terri Schiavo's parents an impartial forum in which their case could be heard. Judge Greer was too thick-headed to step down and let another jurist review the case. Congress didn't by-pass the SCOTUS; it never ruled on the case at issue. I'll say it again: the judiciary is fully accountable to the elected branch of government. It pays their salaries and confirms them in their offices. Our courts are political animals and out of control. Ultimately, the only way to restore the separation of powers is to abolish judicial review and get judges out of the business of policy-making altogether.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Trust but Verify]

She doesn't have a breathing tube. Jeez!

[dennisw]

I could care less what you and Sherwood Boehlert think. We have an irresponsible, out of control, black robed punk in Florida who wants to kill off Terri. In such a situation it's great that Congress is going to try to nullify his rulings.

But remember. All Congress has done is throw this case into Federal court. No one knows what this Clinton appointed judge will do.

[Borges]

That's one of the things that's bothered me over the years. Who decides what judicial decisions are sound and which aren't? Impeaching judges for decisions is opening a nasty can of worms IMHO.

[mlc9852]

Only laws that are in favor of starving people to death. If Hitler were in power here, would you still favor the rule of law? Sometimes there is a higher law. It's called "right".

[goldstategop]

I disagree with your characterization of the way Congress dealt with it. As a conservative, I will only add I much prefer to trust the elected representatives of the people than judges accountable to no one.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

OK, then I suppose you think we should go back and reinstate AlGore as US President since the US Supreme Court during the 2000 election broke our "founding principals" and stopped the STATE Democrats from manipulating the Florida votes.

Your analogy is a poor one.

SCOTUS had to step in re the Bush/Gore decision. Here, SCOTUS should have been the final arbitrator and SCOTUS made a decision not to hear the case.

Then, Congress bypassed SCOTUS -- that did not happen in 2000, which makes your analogy a poor one.

The point I am making and what the Congresman is making is simple: Congress overstepped their authority and took a piece of the Constitution along with it.

[CWW]

Sorry, but the State does not have the right to sanction the killing of another human being without dues process. The Federal Constitution's supremacy clause makes this very clear. State rights extend only so far. If, like segregation laws, they violate federal law, the Federal Constitution, or treaties to which the USA is a party, then the state law must give way.

Second, the Federal Consitution specifically empowers Congress to establish the jurisdiction of the Courts. In fact, on numerous occasions, Congress has done just that.

[Borges]

Ultimately, the only way to restore the separation of powers is to abolish judicial review and get judges out of the business of policy-making altogether.

What would judges do then? Hamilton said in Federalist 78. that courts should have the power to declare laws void. In a non 'Marbury vs Madison' situation what would the role of the judiciate be?

[thoughtomator]

Constitutionally, the Congress is the judge of judges' performance, in that it has the sole power to remove them.

If one is not going to impeach a judge for consistently misinterpreting the laws, then there is no power of impeachment, and we can declare judges to be our overlords.

[goldstategop]

Cheers for checks and balances! Of course, this judge could simply become another Poster Child for judicial activism. But no one can say we did not everything in power to save Terri.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Trust but Verify]

Two wrongs don't make a right. If you think abortion is a states' rights issue (I agree, BTW), then so is this. Because it has been improperly made a federal issue doesn't mean we should do the same here.

[garybob]

Congress made law to circumvent Florida law.

And what law might that be?

I won't dignify that with a response.

If I wanted Terri to die, I guess I'd be reluctant to admit it too.

[mlc9852]

I always thought conservatives believed in life. Terri is not, I repeat, not on life-support. Read testimony of people involved in this case and decide for yourself what should be done. Read about Michael and read testimony of a former girlfriend. There is much more to this case than you'll see or hear in the MSM.

[Shethink13]

That's fair enough; but Congress made law to circumvent Florida law.

What Florida law is Congress circumventing? Name it specifically, please.

[thoughtomator]

If states' rights can trump the right to life, on what basis do we prevent states from legalizing slavery?

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

That's ludicrous. The "states' rights" issue is the decision from the Florida courts.

Your statement of what "you see" is not worth commenting further on.

[goldstategop]

Congress can make and unmake inferior federal tribunals. I refer you to Article III of the Constitution. If Congress wants to grant a court jurisdiction to hear a case brought by a specific citizen, that's entirely within its power.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)