Posted on 05/09/2005 5:36:58 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Republican judges killed Terri
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: May 9, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
There's a good reason congressional Republicans will not hold investigative hearings on the judicial homicide of Terri Schiavo.
Republican judges killed her, just as surely as the Democrat judges did.
This is the dirty little secret that would be uncovered if Republican lawmakers scratched beneath the surface of how and why the 11th Circuit ignored the will of the people and the U.S. Congress and the president of the United States in refusing a full review of her case as decided by Republican county Judge George Greer.
While much attention has been placed on the fact that U.S. District Judge James Whittemore, a Bill Clinton appointee, twice violated the will of Congress in refusing the review, less attention has been focused on the fact that every single Republican appointee on the 11th Circuit supported his decision.
The only dissenter was Charles R. Wilson, a Bill Clinton appointee.
All six judges nominated by President Ronald Reagan, President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush, including William Pryor – who was recess-appointed just last year to avoid a Democratic filibuster – voted not to save Terri's life.
All six!
This fact was brought to my attention by Denver radio talk-show host Bob Enyart, who is urging those who care about life in this country to reconsider their strategy of electing Republican politicians to appoint them.
It's an idea worth considering.
But it is also critical to understand there will be no accountability for judges of either party who ignore the law.
Let's recall why President Bush was in such a hurry to appoint Pryor in the first place.
He had done the president's dirty work in removing Judge Roy Moore from his lawful seat as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court over the Ten Commandments monument.
It was Pryor who upheld U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order to remove the monument or remove Moore from his elected office. In what can only be viewed as a reward – a quid pro quo – Pryor, unlike many other far more qualified Bush nominees to the federal bench, was promoted to the 11th Circuit.
There, he joined five other Republican colleagues who denied Terri Schiavo her right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I don't know what the answer is, but it is clear the solution to getting better judges is not simply voting Republican.
In fact, as the Terri Schiavo case demonstrates, the fact that all six Republican-appointed judges on the 11th Circuit flouted the law and the will of the people in this case and the fact that the Republicans in the U.S. Congress fear to hold them accountable, it is perhaps less likely that we will solve this problem by just voting Republican.
I'm certainly not suggesting Democrats will solve it. Surely, they will only make it worse. What I am suggesting is that we have a completely unaccountable judiciary in this country. The judges have become the lawmakers. It really doesn't seem to make much difference who appoints them.
Let's suppose Democrats appoint bad judges 99 percent of the time. And let's suppose Republicans appoint bad judges 75 percent of the time. Can we really clean up the judiciary by electing people who are going to appoint bad judges most of the time?
I don't think so.
I don't pretend to have the answers.
But I think I have a firm grasp of the problem.
When was the last time anyone fixed a problem without recognizing its true nature?
As usual, the people are going to have to lead. Don't leave it to the politicians to fix the mess. They won't do it.
Sounds about right I'd say.
But the plaintiffs didn't ask for that. They wanted to rehash their appellate claims that had been turned down repeatedly in state court.
The courts rule on what is before them, or at least they should.
Can't prove it from where Terri's buried.
But the plaintiffs didn't ask for that
I think it took them until the second time around, but they got around to asking for it. And IIRC, even on the first go-round, there was a dissenting opinon (that the case was not being handled per the people's intent, as expressed in legislation) at the Circuit Court.
The general points I was making with my previous post were that Farah's article had no analysis, and your assertion that the Republican judges FOLLOWED the law is subject to well-reasoned disagreement. See judge's dissenting opinion.
I guess the situation is just a lot simpler in my view. When you strip it down to the essentials, what Greer had to decide was:
Is it right or wrong to withhold water and food from a person who cannot voice objection?
"Evidence" is not necessary to answer such a question.
Actually, I don't think she is buried at all. She was cremated following her murder and apparently the scumbag "husband" won't tell Terri's parents where the ashes are.
It still staggers my mind that the (presumably corrupt) Clinton appointment was the only judge with any sense of right and wrong. The world is turned upside down.
A lot of liberal Democrats have been masquerading as Republicans in order to get themselves elected.
I'm less convinced that the federal courts didn't do what they had to do given the facts and the pleadings. They certainly weren't given anything in the first round of filings and, realistically, it was probably too late from a clinical standpoint for Terry when they were given a second chance to intervene.
Even then, it's arguable at best. The Schindlers' lawyers simply never made the best arguments and it was apparent to many of us here at the time.
Take the emotional aspects of Terri's case and put them aside for a moment. These life and death matters rightly belong to the states. We allow states to decide whether or not to have a death penalty. If Roe v. Wade is reversed, it will return the options regarding abortion to the states for them to decide.
Just like probate law belongs to the states, so should these decisions. The states are the testing grounds for different approaches to legal matters, and having 50 of them trying out different things ultimately leads to better decisions which are later adopted by all.
Florida screwed this one up. The answer isn't a federal law, hastily written in a couple of days. It's for other states to observe the process and come up with alternative solutions.
You've been given the links several times. I can't find them now, but hopefully someone will provide the links again. I don't imagine you'll read them, but the lurkers are probably interested.
Pinging a couple people who might have the links.
"Evidence" is not necessary to answer such a question.
Yes, it is. Florida law, like most other states, not only permits but directs health care facilities to withhold food and water from patients who have indicated a desire for that to happen under those circumstances.
It might surprise you, but I volunteered to help employees of a local Catholic hospital fill out their Advanced Directives (living wills) last week, and out of the 50 or so that I did, only one expressed the desire to remain alive in a situation similar to Terri's.
That really surprised me at a Catholic hospital.
In any event, Judge Greer did have to make that determination, and it required evidence. Whatever that evidence might have been.
And where might that be? I know, silly question. Even her family doesn't know the answer to that one.
I didn't see much difference between Republicans and Democrats in all of this. Even Sheila Jackson-Lee supported Terri's right to live, until it came time to vote. She blended right in with a lot of Republicans.
While it's not on point, Federal law guarantees a death row convict the right of Federal appeal, even though the underlying case is tried according to state law.
Civil procedure is also largely a creation of Congress, adapted by the various states, Louisiana excepted, of course.
Anyway, thanks for the small concession that the question of whether or not the federal judges followed the law is "arguable at best." Whether or not the Federal courts followed the law is not a slam dunk, either "yes" or "no."
Florida screwed this one up. The answer isn't a federal law, hastily written in a couple of days.
It's foolish to count on Congress to get anything right ;-) But it may be that federal oversight is appropriate, in some cases of withholding food and water with the objective of shortening life. Especially where an error below results in NOT following the patient's wishes and killing them AGAINST their wishes. That's the intent of federal oversight in capital cases, to provide a safeguard just in case the state court blew it. The stakes are the same, life and death. It's a minor check on state power and on an individual's right to self-determination, without outright denial of either.
Not to my knowledge. Alzheimer's is always a concern, but I did have enough interest in this case to have looked at the trial testimony if I'd seen a link.
It's more than likely that I could have missed a post directed toward me during the ordeal. The posts were flying fast and furious.
RINO galore.
Time to kick these traitors out of office.
These RINO, better known as neoconservatives, are responsible for turning our country into another banana republic with their treasonous immigration policies.
We need to elect real Reagan Republicans, ie Paleoconservatives.
FWIW, the dissenting judge noted, in the opinion published on March 23, that his opinion of "preservation of status quo" as envisioned by Congress required the resumption of feeding. Even if the matter wasn't framed for a de novo review of the facts; following legislative intent as intepreted by the dissenting judge was probably not too late from a medical clinical point.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32305opn11.pdf <-
I'm really not interested in rehashing the case at this point. It'll be rehashed by better scholars than me, and I'm content to wait for them to finish their analyses. Like I said, my general point is that just about every aspect of this case is arguable. Except on FR ;-)
Bingo!
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.