Posted on 03/29/2005 3:30:56 PM PST by ninenot
The White House was "troubled," according to one source, about the reported actions -- or inactions -- of the Justice Department last week as Republicans in Congress made a last ditch attempt to rescue Terri Schiavo.
"You actually had Arlen Specter and his Judiciary Committee out there trying to save this woman's life, and then you have Alberto Gonzales and his crew over at Justice basically putting up roadblocks," says a White House staffer. "This was not a good way for Gonzales to start his tenure there."
Gonzales has been on the job at Justice for a little over two months now, and the congressional attempts to restore the feeding tube to Schiavo was the new AG's first high-profile foray into the politics that swirl around the Justice Department.
By most accounts, Gonzales and his team fared poorly, at least from Republican viewpoints. "Instead of trying to work with us, all we got were no's and roadblocks, with little guidance on what we could do and could not do," says a House leadership staffer who spoke often with the Justice Department's Legislative Affairs office. "They weren't being helpful, and they sure weren't doing the White House any favors."
Ultimately, both the House and the Senate passed -- and President Bush signed -- legislation designed to give Schiavo's parents their best shot at having a federal court overrule the rulings of Florida state courts. Those federal filings ultimately failed.
Before the legislation, the Senate Judiciary Committee -- with Specter's approval -- and House Republicans attempted to subpoena Terri Schiavo, a political maneuver that won plaudits from a number of conservative groups around the country, but which received a thumbs-down the Department of Justice. "The Justice Department pushed us hard to withdraw the subpoena idea," says the House staffer. "We told them that the White House knew about this, and that they tacitly approved. It didn't seem to matter to DOJ. Gonzales and his folks just made things harder for us."
"If the White House was hoping that Gonzales might be able to burnish his image for conservatives leading up to a Supreme Court nomination, the Schiavo case tarnished it pretty badly," says a staffer for a Senator who was pushing hard for the subpoena solution. "I'll say this, every conservative up here was wishing [former Attorney General John] Ashcroft was still there."
To be fair to Gonzalez, Ashcroft's presence at Justice probably would not have made much difference. Ashcroft was excoriated by conservatives on his leaving office for what they said were his failures to press for tough stands against pornography, human trafficking and abortion rights, while not pressing hard enough for faith-based programs.
Another Senate staffer says her impression of the Justice Department's role in the Schiavo case is more benign. "They were giving us straight legal analysis from the federal perspective, nothing more, which is probably what has a lot of people up in arms, and it was all behind the scenes. These folks wanted Gonzales out front, making it appear this was an issue he cared about. That didn't happen," says the staffer. "But I don't think anyone can dispute that the legal advice they gave us wasn't sound. They just didn't help us get to where we wanted to be."
And for failing to do that, many Republicans in the House and the Senate say that Gonzales has failed the first litmus test on the conservative scorecard.
Blindly followng any law as an end pursuit is foolish.
The "Rule of Law" does not mean squat when it fails to protect and defend innocent life. Apart from that object "Rule of Law" is "Three Empty Words."
bttt
I was just going to make the same observation.
I never expected it to. But perhaps some other people are reading this thread who aren't willing to throw it all away over one case in Florida.
Actually is is clear. Congress has the authority to issue subpoenas and the executive has the authority to compel attendence. There is, so far as I know, no limit on whom Congress can subpeona because there is no authority to prevent their consideration of legislation of any kind they desire.
It is also painfully clear that neither Congress nor the Administration had the backbone to follow through because of political considerations.
Please quit blaming the courts for not reaching beyond the pleading filed by Gibbs.
Oh come on. Courts often go beyond the presented arguments for the reasoning of their decisions. I wouldn't call it routine, but it is certainly not uncommon. If ever there was a case calling for it, this was it. The courts had been directed to perform de novo review of this case WRT Terri's constitutional rights. This court showed no deference to the intent of the law whatsoever. We live in a judicial tyranny - the consent of the governed is dead.
The problem with ignoring this as just one case in Florida is with the way our legal system works. Everything is tied to precedent. This case sets a precedent that should be frightening. What if some father decides to use this case to fight to terminate the life of his retarded child?
That said, I will always wonder what would have happened if the family lawyer had filed for the de novo hearing provided for in the Federal law instead of trying to argue the case on grounds that were not covered in that law.
Frankly, I think he is as bad as some of the most Liberal judges. He will not use law to help Schiavo, but he will not enforce it on immigration matters.
Sounds like AG Gonzales was the only one in the Republican ranks that believed is states' rights.
Kudos Mr. Gonzales!
Too bad you are surrounded by Republican'ts that act like Democrats.
He was definitely conspicuous by his absence. Too bad - I had hoped for better things from him.
Then it's a shame that he and so many others conveniently forget about individual rights.
Heard less than one minute of Sean this afternoon so I cannot cite the context but he was speaking to Jesse Jackson about the Florida legislature and claimed that it was REPUBLICANS at fault for the bill not passing.
And before I forget, to tie this back to the article, why didn't AG Gonzales send a top team to make arguments in the case? I can think of several arguments that no judge could legitimately dismiss as unworthy of scrutiny in a few hours.
Clearly Gonzales didn't want to get involved. It's both fair and right to blast him for it.
Don't you all realize that it is the courts that should be interpreting the law and it's applications. It's checks and balances. It's sad that Congress had to intervene, and Gonzalez was just telling them that Congress interfering isn't very legal. Emotions shouldn't overrun sound principles. Hold the judges and courts responsible for bad decisions, not Congress, or the Governor, or the President, because it isn't their fault or even their problem to deal with. We all hate judges who legislate from the bench, so I think the judges (and AG) have every right to hate legislatures judiciating from the capitol.
None of the courts in this case have legislated new "rights" or laws in this case. There may have been some bad findings of FACT, but the courts didn't grant Michael Schiavo any new rights that I can see. The right to remove the tube was created in the Florida code by Florida legislators.
Admittedly, the right to remove the tube was first found by the Florida Supreme Court, but I don't think it was in the Schiavo case. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I was hardly following this case in the late 1990s. It was after that decision that the Florida lawmakers put it into the Code.
After that point, there hasn't been judicial activism that I can discern. We may not like the decisions in this case, but that doesn't make it rise to a precedent.
Well, of course. I mean Democrats are jumping all over themselves to help Terri. I mean, we have both Joe Lieberman and Jesse Jackson to name ALL of them.
That's why we should turn against Republicans because they only made special efforts to go as far as they thought they legally could. Why not make them pay?
Would any of us want to implore our legislators to change the laws taking guardianship away from spouses and giving the right to parents and/or siblings instead?
...he's probably doing valet' parking for the local La Raza meeting.
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.