George Bush's double standard

[SmarterThanYou]

I think they applied a portion of their balance of power in this case Merlin, that they did not overstep their bounds as written in the Constitution. They made no changes to any existing law, just made it possible for higher courts to review the case.

I don't appreciate their action as it clearly steps on State's rights, but it doesn't overstep the authority they were given by the Constitution.

the congress made lower courts, the state made their courts. It's the governor of that states responsibility to oversee that courts decisions, not the congress. This issue though clashes with the governors viewpoints and he should have thought of that when he nominated the judge. The huge door that congress has opened now will be a major headache, one we all will pay for. Saying its ok to protect one life sounds good, til it affects you.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

From what I understand of the Texas law it applies to Terminally Ill patients. Terri isn't terminally ill. I don't see anything hypocritical in the messure.

The 5 month old was not terminally ill. He was never going to get to a point where he would survive without the medical equipment. that law also specifically states breathing and/or feeding tubes.

This isnt a state v Federal issue. The state legislature acted to try to prevent Terri's death as well. The judiciary struck it down.

as unconstitutional. isn't that completely within the courts rights?

This is a Legislative v. Judicial battle. I think its appropriate for the Federal government to interfere when the state tries to protect someones federally protected rights and is unable to.

the courts are part of the state. There were 3 seperate guardians, 16 judges, and 30 some different trials and appeals. you can say that there was zero protection for terri in all that?

Terri needs to be given due process. She does not have a lawyer working for her behalf so she has not had that due process. I hardly see how her due process has been kept if the husband forbids her to have an attorney even if the family fights for her behalf.

she had the entire court system on her side when the guardian was appointed.

 

[dilloduck]

the congress made lower courts, the state made their courts. It's the governor of that states responsibility to oversee that courts decisions, not the congress. This issue though clashes with the governors viewpoints and he should have thought of that when he nominated the judge. The huge door that congress has opened now will be a major headache, one we all will pay for. Saying its ok to protect one life sounds good, til it affects you.

naaaaaaaa--I think it's a one shot deal cause nothing will be overturned or changed

 

[Merlin1047]

I think they applied a portion of their balance of power in this case Merlin, that they did not overstep their bounds as written in the Constitution. They made no changes to any existing law, just made it possible for higher courts to review the case.

I don't appreciate their action as it clearly steps on State's rights, but it doesn't overstep the authority they were given by the Constitution.

Let's assume that your statement regarding the lack of Constitutional infringement is correct. Even so, that still leaves the troubling question about Congressional meddling in the court system.

One truism regarding Republicans is that they generally tend to look very favorably on corporate American. Let's further assume that you sue a corporation for a defective product which caused you injury. You win in state court, and you are winning the subsequent appeal when some Senator or Representative in whose district the corporation employs 2000 people decides he's going to have the case moved to a federal court. So now you're faced with fighting the whole thing again in different courts. Chances are you're going to run out of money and the corporation wins by default. Whatever happened to that old saying "justice delayed is justice denied"?

Another example. One of the tools used by Delay and the House was to initiate a bogus "investigation" and issue a subpoena to have Terri Schiavo "testify". Now that's not too hard to agree with in this particular case. You have a helpless party who engenders sympathy in any person who has even the tiniest bit of compassion. But change the players. Assume there's a corrupt politician (liberal, of course), let's say it's Kennedy. Assume that Kennedy is pals with a person on death row for multiple homicide. Now assume that Kennedy initiates an "investigation" and calls this person to testify. Since the "investigation" is open-ended, the death sentence is never carried out. Certainly if Congress can meddle as it did in the Schiavo case, they could do the same thing in my hypothetical Kennedy case.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Another example. One of the tools used by Delay and the House was to initiate a bogus "investigation" and issue a subpoena to have Terri Schiavo "testify". Now that's not too hard to agree with in this particular case. You have a helpless party who engenders sympathy in any person who has even the tiniest bit of compassion. But change the players. Assume there's a corrupt politician (liberal, of course), let's say it's Kennedy. Assume that Kennedy is pals with a person on death row for multiple homicide. Now assume that Kennedy initiates an "investigation" and calls this person to testify. Since the "investigation" is open-ended, the death sentence is never carried out. Certainly if Congress can meddle as it did in the Schiavo case, they could do the same thing in my hypothetical Kennedy case.

thats the exact reason why the judge denied the subpeona. he saw through the ploy by congress.

 

[dilloduck]

thats the exact reason why the judge denied the subpeona. he saw through the ploy by congress.

Poltical gestures are a dime a dozen----happens all the time

no harm--no foul

 

[Bonnie]

Pointing finger at libs and saying they're just as bad is hardly a defense for a position on this question.

And again, for the purpose of my question, the particulars of the Schiavo case are irrelevant. Those questions should be argued in the court which is assigned to hear her case.

My question was, and remains - is it appropriate for the Republican Congress and President to impose themselves into a court case in the manner they have chosen?

IN general no... in this case yes, this was an 11th hour emergency action designed specifically for one woman in one case. Considering the notion that the federal government is imbued or compelled to provide for every citizen the right to life and due process, and in this case it was viewed as not happening at the State level immediate action was taken. Do I think Bush is perfect no, do I think anyone is perfect and completely consistent through out their lives of course not. In the matter of life and death rules are made to be broken or stretched to their limits. I applaud Bush and both the Republicans and Democrats who voted in favor of this, do I care if there was any political grandstanding, not really because the nature of the case is more important than the strict enforcement of the seperation of powers. The legislation language was narrow in it's scope desinged to not set a precedent, hopefully that will remain the case, at least in this instance. Do I think laws need to be changed either at the state or federal level to better define and protect the wishes of the helpless, yes that's really the only reason our governement exists. Hopefully that will happen. However waiting on that kind of legislation takes time and the poor woman who shall remain nameless, doesn't have too much longer to wait for that to happen.


Do I hope and want a general consistency of above yes, most certainly.

 

[Merlin1047]

IN general no... in this case yes, this was an 11th hour emergency action designed specifically for one woman in one case. Considering the notion that the federal government is imbued or compelled to provide for every citizen the right to life and due process, and in this case it was viewed as not happening at the State level immediate action was taken. Do I think Bush is perfect no, do I think anyone is perfect and completely consistent through out their lives of course not. In the matter of life and death rules are made to be broken or stretched to their limits. I applaud Bush and both the Republicans and Democrats who voted in favor of this, do I care if there was any political grandstanding, not really because the nature of the case is more important than the strict enforcement of the seperation of powers.

Okay, I can see your point, although I enthusiatically disagree with it.

I believe that the foundation of our government's three branches should not be tampered with, that each should be allowed and required to perform their respective functions. I believe that the recent actions of the legislative and the executive branch amounted to inappropriate meddling. I further believe that this sets a dangerous precedent for future erosion of the separation of the three branches.

I believe that the only appropriate way for the legislative branch to handle this situation would have been to pass a law which would address a situation such as this. Instead, they chose underhanded and inappropriate parliamentary parlor tricks.

These actions by the legislative branch have the potential to have a cascading effect on court processes from this point forward. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, because the thought of political hacks regularly insinuating themselves into the court process scares the living shit out of me.

 

[Annie]

thats the exact reason why the judge denied the subpeona. he saw through the ploy by congress.

No, he saw that the parents has nearly 0 or less chance of prevailing.

 

[no1tovote4]

Let's assume that your statement regarding the lack of Constitutional infringement is correct. Even so, that still leaves the troubling question about Congressional meddling in the court system.

The Congress writes the law that the courts must adhere to. It is a check and balance system. Each of them have the power to make changes that effect the other in certain ways. In this case the Congress used their specific power to write a law allowing for the higher courts to review the decisions of the lower courts.

One truism regarding Republicans is that they generally tend to look very favorably on corporate American. Let's further assume that you sue a corporation for a defective product which caused you injury. You win in state court, and you are winning the subsequent appeal when some Senator or Representative in whose district the corporation employs 2000 people decides he's going to have the case moved to a federal court. So now you're faced with fighting the whole thing again in different courts. Chances are you're going to run out of money and the corporation wins by default. Whatever happened to that old saying "justice delayed is justice denied"?

This actually happens, or they have changed the laws regarding the award amount you can get. Personally I am not Republican and don't like laws either for or against Corporations in like manner.

Another example. One of the tools used by Delay and the House was to initiate a bogus "investigation" and issue a subpoena to have Terri Schiavo "testify". Now that's not too hard to agree with in this particular case. You have a helpless party who engenders sympathy in any person who has even the tiniest bit of compassion. But change the players. Assume there's a corrupt politician (liberal, of course), let's say it's Kennedy. Assume that Kennedy is pals with a person on death row for multiple homicide. Now assume that Kennedy initiates an "investigation" and calls this person to testify. Since the "investigation" is open-ended, the death sentence is never carried out. Certainly if Congress can meddle as it did in the Schiavo case, they could do the same thing in my hypothetical Kennedy case.

Congress has the right of Subpoena and it is not limited by the Constitution, in this particular case they may do just that, and of course tried, however it changed the Judge's decisions not even one iota, they therefore took the next step. It is fortunate that most times Congress does not use this power in this way, but it certainly was Constitutional.

As I stated before, I do not appreciate them making this particular stand and using the balance of powers for a single case in this way. Do not assume Party, and therefore my opinion,because I am a member of this board.

 

[Bonnie]

Okay, I can see your point, although I enthusiatically disagree with it.

I believe that the foundation of our government's three branches should not be tampered with, that each should be allowed and required to perform their respective functions. I believe that the recent actions of the legislative and the executive branch amounted to inappropriate meddling. I further believe that this sets a dangerous precedent for future erosion of the separation of the three branches.

I believe that the only appropriate way for the legislative branch to handle this situation would have been to pass a law which would address a situation such as this. Instead, they chose underhanded and inappropriate parliamentary parlor tricks.

These actions by the legislative branch have the potential to have a cascading effect on court processes from this point forward. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, because the thought of political hacks regularly insinuating themselves into the court process scares the living shit out of me.

Likewise I see the your point and the dangers of such measures being abused or overused, certainly I get very angry and frightened when the libs do it adnauseum. You could easily make the point that government in general is out of hand with intrusions into personal matters, most coming from the left and some coming from the right. I could list many things I think governemnt should stay out of. In fact probably the only thing I think government has the right to insinuate itself in is the matter protecting human life as it does everyday through law enforcement and governement protection of rights. what scares me to death is judicial activism that seems to be running rampant with very little safe gaps in place other than lengthy litigation to undo some of the harm that they do. Judges are not God but they are playing God in many of their decisions whether it be the position they are placed in, constraints or lack therof. And worse yet the rights of helpless people are being grosely unprotected, and the rights of criminals are not only protected but celebrated.

It's all backwards????????

 

[no1tovote4]

the congress made lower courts, the state made their courts. It's the governor of that states responsibility to oversee that courts decisions, not the congress. This issue though clashes with the governors viewpoints and he should have thought of that when he nominated the judge. The huge door that congress has opened now will be a major headache, one we all will pay for. Saying its ok to protect one life sounds good, til it affects you.

And it is the Federal Government that has precedence as per Amendment 14, it is part of the Constitution regardless of whether we like the effect. According to the current document they are well within the powers granted by the Constitution in making this particular one use law.

 

[dilloduck]

Likewise I see the your point and the dangers of such measures being abused or overused, certainly I get very angry and frightened when the libs do it adnauseum. You could easily make the point that government in general is out of hand with intrusions into personal matters, most coming from the left and some coming from the right. I could list many things I think governemnt should stay out of. In fact probably the only thing I think government has the right to insinuate itself in is the matter protecting human life as it does everyday through law enforcement and governement protection of rights. what scares me to death is judicial activism that seems to be running rampant with very little safe gaps in place other than lengthy litigation to undo some of the harm that they do. Judges are not God but they are playing God in many of their decisions whether it be the position they are placed in, constraints or lack therof. And worse yet the rights of helpless people are being grosely unprotected, and the rights of criminals are not only protected but celebrated.

It's all backwards????????

Amen---dogs have more rights

 

[musicman]

Another example. One of the tools used by Delay and the House was to initiate a bogus "investigation" and issue a subpoena to have Terri Schiavo "testify". Now that's not too hard to agree with in this particular case. You have a helpless party who engenders sympathy in any person who has even the tiniest bit of compassion. But change the players. Assume there's a corrupt politician (liberal, of course), let's say it's Kennedy. Assume that Kennedy is pals with a person on death row for multiple homicide. Now assume that Kennedy initiates an "investigation" and calls this person to testify. Since the "investigation" is open-ended, the death sentence is never carried out. Certainly if Congress can meddle as it did in the Schiavo case, they could do the same thing in my hypothetical Kennedy case.

That is theoretically possible, of course, but our corrupt politician would probably find it unwise and counter-productive to do so. He is somewhat hamstrung by the constitutionally designed accountability that is life as an elected official. Even a constituency as slavishly gullible as Kennedy's would squirm over something like this - to say nothing of the censure and other disciplinary options open to Congress itself. A corrupt politician is, above all, self-serving.

 

[musicman]

Now, how does Pres. Bush reconcile the Futile Care law on the one hand and the unwarranted interference in the court system in regard to the Schiavo case on the other hand?

Perhaps the "futility" aspect was enough of a question to merit closer examination.

I daresay I'm as frightened and angry over the rampant judicial activism that has been used, like a weapon, against our way of life, as you are, Merlin. But, I sincerely believe that the Schaivo case was one of the few in the last forty years where federal intervention in the state courts was the proper course of action. Due process was a real, plausible issue here.

It all appears to be moot now, though.

 

[Merlin1047]

Point well made! However I think we are seeing alot of attention given to this here case for all the wrong reasons. In fact I see more fingerpointing from the libs than actual reason to discuss the issue, I mean how easy to take aim over something such as this.

Not a good defense at all as you suggested, however suggesting that this is something that could only happen by republicans may be a little off. Regardless of which side you choose to represent there is always a degree of contradiciton, corruption, or whatever you want to call it. The whole issue has gone political and some feel the need to feed of it because of that, very sad in my opinion.

I have no intention of mitigating the actions of the liberal left. I think you know I'm no fan of that contingent.

I wish that I recalled more details, but I was watching Fox earlier this afternoon and Judge Napolitano and another jurist were guests. Napolitano stated that a Senator was "spitting mad" because he (the Senator) thought that the recent legislative action amounted to an "order" to the federal judge to require that the feeding tube be re-inserted.

This is the level of ignorance of some of our elected representatives. It is truly frightening that such arrogance is coupled with such a degree of stupidity. And it is absolutely reprehensible that a person making a living as a politician knows so little about the function of the government in which he serves or the requirements of the Constitution which he has sworn an oath to uphold.

 

[Merlin1047]

In fact probably the only thing I think government has the right to insinuate itself in is the matter protecting human life as it does everyday through law enforcement and governement protection of rights.

Certainly some valid points. The proper way to address them is to pass legislation which sets up a satisfactory framework within which judicial decision must be made. Then if judges violate that, they are liable for disciplinary action.

what scares me to death is judicial activism that seems to be running rampant with very little safe gaps in place other than lengthy litigation to undo some of the harm that they do. Judges are not God but they are playing God in many of their decisions whether it be the position they are placed in, constraints or lack therof.

I have ranted many times against judicial activism. But in this case, I believe that the judges in Florida have carefully followed the existing law. I do not believe that there is a judicial crusade to pull the plug on Terri Schiavo. In this case I believe that we have judicial activism in reverse. We have the legislature attempting to intimidate and overrule judges.

And worse yet the rights of helpless people are being grosely unprotected, and the rights of criminals are not only protected but celebrated.

It's all backwards????????

What can I say but - yup. It has indeed become a bizarre and inverted process. All the more reason that we need the proper legislation put into place in order to force the courts to adhere to priorities that are not the priorities of individual judges, but the priorities of the American people.

 

[Merlin1047]

I daresay I'm as frightened and angry over the rampant judicial activism that has been used, like a weapon, against our way of life, as you are, Merlin. But, I sincerely believe that the Schaivo case was one of the few in the last forty years where federal intervention in the state courts was the proper course of action. Due process was a real, plausible issue here.

It all appears to be moot now, though.

MM I certainly hope you are correct. But there's an old Arab saying that if you allow the camel's nose into the tent, the rest of him will soon follow. What has happened here, although the motivations may be admirable depending on one's view, is a dangerous precedent for the interaction of our branches of government.

It would be just as appropriate if a judge attempted to slap a restraining order on Congress and demand that they cease debate on this matter.

 

[Bonnie]

Merlin 1047..Certainly some valid points. The proper way to address them is to pass legislation which sets up a satisfactory framework within which judicial decision must be made. Then if judges violate that, they are liable for disciplinary action.

Absolutely!!!!

 

[musicman]

MM I certainly hope you are correct. But there's an old Arab saying that if you allow the camel's nose into the tent, the rest of him will soon follow. What has happened here, although the motivations may be admirable depending on one's view, is a dangerous precedent for the interaction of our branches of government.

It would be just as appropriate if a judge attempted to slap a restraining order on Congress and demand that they cease debate on this matter.

I disagree, Merlin. I think a perhaps not perfect but clearly plausible case can be made that Terri is about to be deprived of her life without due process. If this matter doesn't fit within the parameters of the XIVth Amendment, no case does - and the amendment is worthless.