"Frist and DeLay earnestly tried what they could get passed in time to do any good at all."
Yeah. And I've got some prime real estate in the everglades you might be interested in.
They knew EXACTLY what they were doing, and they weren't earnest in the least.
Here is a quote from congress. Despite what the minority democrats might want, there is no doubt that Frist understood what this exchange meant.
"Mr. FRIST. I would be pleased to help clarify this issue.
Mr. LEVIN. Section 5 of the original version of the Martinez bill
conferred jurisdiction on a Federal court to hear a case like this, and
then stated that the Federal court "shall" issue a stay of State court
proceedings pending determination of the Federal case. I was opposed
to that provision because I believe Congress should not mandate that a
Federal judge issue a stay. Under longstanding law and practice, the
decision to issue a stay is a matter of discretion for the Federal judge
based on the facts of the case. The majority leader and the other bill
sponsors accepted my suggestion that the word "shall" in section 5 be
changed to "may."
The version of the bill we are now considering strikes section 5
altogether. Although nothing in the text of the new bill mandates a
stay, the omission of this section, which in the earlier Senate-passed
bill made a stay permissive, might be read to mean that Congress
intends to mandate a stay. I believe that reading is incorrect. The
absence of any state [sic] provision in the new bill simply means that
Congress relies on current law. Under current law, a judge may decide
whether or not a stay is appropriate.
Does the majority leader share my understanding of the bill?
Mr. FRIST. I share the understanding of the Senator from Michigan,
as does the junior Senator from Florida who is the chief sponsor of this
bill. Nothing in the current bill or its legislative history mandates a
stay. I would assume, however, the Federal court would grant a stay
based on the facts of this case because Mrs. Schiavo would need to be
alive in order for the court to make its determination. Nevertheless,
this bill does not change current law under which a stay is
discretionary.
Mr. LEVIN. In light of that assurance, I do not object to the
unanimous consent agreement under which the bill will be considered
by the Senate. I do not make the same assumption as the majority
leader makes about what a Federal court will do. Because the
discretion of the Federal court is left unrestricted in this bill, I will not
exercise my right to block its consideration."