George Bush's double standard

[Merlin1047]

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.

I don't know about that. The case has been in court for over five years. During that time her parents' lawyer was her representative. Personally, I don't believe that the issue of depriving her of due process holds much water. But then again, I'm no expert and I could be wr..., wrrrr.., wrrrrrr..., - I could be less than one hundred percent correct.

 

[musicman]

I don't know about that. The case has been in court for over five years. During that time her parents' lawyer was her representative. Personally, I don't believe that the issue of depriving her of due process holds much water. But then again, I'm no expert and I could be wr..., wrrrr.., wrrrrrr..., - I could be less than one hundred percent correct.

LOL! You have trouble with that word, too? I damn near broke my jaw trying to say it once!

I just think that where doubt exists - in a situation where the stakes are this high - no stone should be left unturned.

 

[007]

40 posts here, and yes I did peruse them rather quickly, but I don't recall anyone mentioning what came first to my mind.

Merlin1047, you wanted to point out GW's hypocrisy for meddling in Florida's state affairs, but going the opposite way in his own state. Well, don't you think that maybe it was because of some rather persistant URGING from his BROTHER? I'm mean, I think that's obvious. Am I wrong?

And hell, if GW ran for a third term, he wouldn't get my vote. The NUMBER ONE THREAT to America today, is the TIDAL WAVE of illegals coming from mexico, and Bush is doing virtually NOTHING. That fucking pisses me off to no end.

Screw that little fucker. He's on his second term, and he probably figures, "fuck it, I can do whatever the hell I want now".

 

[theim]

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.

Your analogy falters in that it equates Terri Schiavo with a convicted murderer. If Ted Kennedy meddled in order to save someone like Terri, no I wouldn't mind. Hooray for Ted.

 

[Merlin1047]

Your analogy falters in that it equates Terri Schiavo with a convicted murderer. If Ted Kennedy meddled in order to save someone like Terri, no I wouldn't mind. Hooray for Ted.

No it does not. Once again you are bogged down in the specifics of the Schiavo case. My analogy was aimed at principle not at fact and as such it is perfectly valid.

 

[Merlin1047]

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.

Here are a few facts regarding Terri Schiavo's representation.

http://news.tbo.com/news/MGA1MFE6HMD.html
Judge Makes USF Professor Schiavo's Guardian Ad Litem
By DAVID SOMMER [email protected]
Published: Nov 1, 2003


CLEARWATER - A University of South Florida health law professor will act as Terri Schiavo's guardian ad litem for the specific issue of whether she can ever eat normally, a judge ruled late Friday.
Jay Wolfson, who has served on the board of directors at Tampa General Hospital and who teaches health law, medicine and other subjects at USF, Florida State University and Stetson University College of Law, was appointed by Chief Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge David Demers.

Demers was directed to make the appointment as part of the controversial ``Terri's Law'' statute, which was quickly passed by the Legislature on Oct. 21. The law granted Gov. Jeb Bush the power to override a court order and have Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted after the brain- damaged woman went almost a week without food and water.

In an order announced shortly before 5 p.m. Friday, Demers said he had to rely on a pleading Bush had previously filed in federal court to decide what Wolfson's job should be.

and then this:

http://www.lifenews.com/bio188.html
Judge Removes Professor as Terri Schiavo's Guardian ad Litem

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
December 23, 2003

Pinellas Park, FL (LifeNews.com) -- A judge has dismissed Jay Wolfson, the Stetson University professor who had been serving as Terri Schiavo's guardian ad litem. Though the order was dated December 17, attorneys for Terri family and her estranged husband Michael only learned recently that Chief Circuit Judge David A. Demers in St. Petersburg had removed Wolfson.

When the state legislature passed Terri's Law, part of the legislation included appointing an independent guardian to report to Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL) about Terri's situation and make recommendations. Wolfson was selected by Demers in October.

Wolfson assessed Terri's case by reviewing hundreds of court documents, interviewing family members, doctors and specialists, and visited Terri on several occasions.

He eventually claimed Terri is in a persistent vegetative state and determined that Terri had no chance of recovery. However, Wolfson also said a swallow test should be administered to determine if Terri could eat and drink on her own if courts overturned Terri's law allow Michael to remove Terri's feeding tube again.

Demers dismissed Wolfson saying he had completed the work assigned to him under Terri's Law.

Bush spokesman Jacob DiPietre told the Associated Press that the governor was disappointed to learn Wolfson was removed. "From the very beginning, the governor stressed the need for an advocate and third party'' to represent Terri, DiPietre said.

Bush had sent Wolfson a letter with several questions about Terri the day before Bush found out the news. He wanted to know what type of experiences Terri would have if she dies from starvation and dehydration. He also asked whether Wolfson knew of any indications Terri had made concerning end-of-life care if she were in a situation like the one she is in now.

Bush attorneys are working on a request to Demers asking him to reinstate Wolfson.

Pat Anderson, the attorney for Terri's parents, said she was surprised by Wolfson's removal.

George Felos, the assisted suicide advocate who is Michael's attorney, agreed with Demers that Wolfson should be removed. Felos is getting help in the lawsuit from the ACLU.

So Terri Schiavo had a guardian approved not only by a judge, but also by the governor and opposed by assisted suicide advocates and the ACLU. Sounds to me like he was the man for the job to represent her interests. In addition to these advocates, she had her family's lawyer and the governor of Florida supporting her cause. If she didn't get due process, then I don't think anyone ever does.

 

[5stringJeff]

This could have gone in any of several forums, but since my basic aim here is to criticize GW, I'll put it into the politics forum.

When Pres. Bush and the Republicans recently rushed to get the Terri Schiavo case into the federal courts, it raised several red-flag issue for me. The actions of the federal government were, in my opinion, a totally inappropriate and dangerous meddling in the court system of the state of Florida. Not only that, the actions of the President and the Congress has had the effect of another power grab for the fed and another erosion of state's rights. Is this now the wave of the future? Will every unpopular decision by a state court end up being usurped by political hacks?

As tired as I am of arguing about Terry Schaivo (because I think that it is common sense that judges should err on the side of life), I'll respond to this one.

As I understand it, Congress has the authority to set the jurisdictions for federal courts. What Congress did was give the federal courts jurisdiction in this particular case, quite in bounds of their Constitutional limits. Now, one may argue whether or not this is wise or not, but I see no problems with its constitutionality.

Moreover, one of the self-evident, unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence is the right to life. It is questionable whether Michael Schaivo's claims (that Terry would have wanted to die) are true. Therefore, I believe that judges should err on the side of life whenever possible, and specifically in this case, where Terri's parents are willing to take care of her (financially, especially). It saddens me to see that judges are ignoring such a basic premise, but I suppose that a truly concerned Congress (or state legislature) could use the other check and balance they have over the judiciary: impeachment.

 

[Merlin1047]

Merlin1047, you wanted to point out GW's hypocrisy for meddling in Florida's state affairs, but going the opposite way in his own state. Well, don't you think that maybe it was because of some rather persistant URGING from his BROTHER? I'm mean, I think that's obvious. Am I wrong?

Entirely possible PR. I had not considered that angle since the impetus for the Congressional influence in this matter originated in the House of Representatives and not in the White House.

And I would not accuse GW of hypocrisy, that's too strong a term. But he certainly is inconsistent at least on this issue and I would have appreciated his efforts far more had they been made with adequate respect for the Constitution.

 

[Merlin1047]

As I understand it, Congress has the authority to set the jurisdictions for federal courts. What Congress did was give the federal courts jurisdiction in this particular case, quite in bounds of their Constitutional limits. Now, one may argue whether or not this is wise or not, but I see no problems with its constitutionality.

I may be missing something, but I do not believe that the Congress has the authority to meddle in INDIVIDUAL cases, especiall not in the manner they have done in this particular case.

As I understand it, Congress has the authority to set the jurisdictions for federal courts. What Congress did was give the federal courts jurisdiction in this particular case, quite in bounds of their Constitutional limits. Now, one may argue whether or not this is wise or not, but I see no problems with its constitutionality.

It saddens me to see that judges are ignoring such a basic premise, but I suppose that a truly concerned Congress (or state legislature) could use the other check and balance they have over the judiciary: impeachment.

I doubt very seriously that any judge involved did anything other than interpret the law and the evidence presented. Will you now add making an unpopular decision as an impeachable offense? You properly criticize judicial activism, yet you are unhappy when judges follow the law and the evidence. Sooner or later you're going to have to borrow a ladder to get off that fence. Can't have it both ways.

 

[5stringJeff]

I may be missing something, but I do not believe that the Congress has the authority to meddle in INDIVIDUAL cases, especiall not in the manner they have done in this particular case.

If Congress can determine the jurisdictions of federal courts, it follows that they are allowed to construe that jurisdiction in individual cases. Again, it may not be the most wise thing to do, and it may be a dangerous precedent, but it is within the bounds of Congress to do.

I doubt very seriously that any judge involved did anything other than interpret the law and the evidence presented. Will you now add making an unpopular decision as an impeachable offense? You properly criticize judicial activism, yet you are unhappy when judges follow the law and the evidence. Sooner or later you're going to have to borrow a ladder to get off that fence. Can't have it both ways.

I'm not arguing that an unpopular decision should be the basis for impeachment. I'm saying that showing such disregard for life could possibly be grounds for impeachment, if Congress (or a state legislature) determined it to be so. I would imagine, though, that there would have to be a law on the books that requires a judge to consider life as a factor in such cases, and it would have to be shown that the judge did not obey this law. So I suppose I should reword my assertion: if there was such a law on the books, and if the judge blatantly ignored that law, then impeachment should be an option.

 

[Merlin1047]

I'm not arguing that an unpopular decision should be the basis for impeachment. I'm saying that showing such disregard for life could possibly be grounds for impeachment, if Congress (or a state legislature) determined it to be so.

But you're making a huge and unwarranted leap here. How can you assert that any of the judges involved lacked a respect for life? The central issue under consideration is trying to determine what Terri Schiavo's wishes were in this situation. Neither you nor I can say one way or another what she wanted.

And in this particular case, it does not matter how you or I may feel about right to life issues. It only matters how Terri Schiavo felt. We should only concern ourselves about this case in regard to assuring that every reasonable effort has been expended to determine Terri's wishes. If she wished to die, she should be allowed to complete the process. If she wished to live, then life support should be continued. But I do agree that if we cannot determine her wishes to any reasonable degree of certainty, we should favor keeping her alive.

 

[5stringJeff]

But I do agree that if we cannot determine her wishes to any reasonable degree of certainty, we should favor keeping her alive.

Thank you... that is the one point I think has been overlooked in this whole situation.

 

[musicman]

So Terri Schiavo had a guardian approved not only by a judge, but also by the governor and opposed by assisted suicide advocates and the ACLU. Sounds to me like he was the man for the job to represent her interests. In addition to these advocates, she had her family's lawyer and the governor of Florida supporting her cause. If she didn't get due process, then I don't think anyone ever does.

But, if judicial activism can be said to have had ANY positive effect on society, it is this: The judiciary has forever disabused us of the notion that judges are somehow worthy of awe. "BECAUSE A JUDGE SAID SO" is not the conversation-closer it once was - they mess up, make erroneous, subjective decisions, and suffer under scrutiny just like any other government official. Moreover, I don't think that's a bad thing.

Congress saw room for doubt here, and acted - in my opinion - properly.

 

[musicman]

Clarification: By, "...I don't think that's a bad thing", I mean the slowly emerging readjusted perception of judges. I think one of the most positive aspects of the American character is its healthy lack of awe for authority figures; not disrespect for the concept of authority, mind you - for that would breed lawlessness - but a distinct disinclination to cloak any all-too-human representative of that authority in the robes of royalty. Judges were perhaps the last vestige of that decidedly non-American awe, and that vapor is dissipating fast.

Long live the wise-cracking, authority-questioning American - and the way of life that allows him to exist!

 

[Merlin1047]

First I'd like to express my appreciation to everyone who shared their thoughts in this thread. The fact that we managed to get through this many posts without someone popping a cork was a noteworthy achievement.

The thing that I find most puzzling is the inverted philosophies of conservative posters versus those more liberal. Conservatives generally support strict interpretation of the law by the courts and tend to look in disfavor at Congressional shenanigans designed to benefit a very narrow constituency. Yet somehow, these same folks seem to have no problem with the fact that Congress passed a law which applies to only ONE person. These same people, who otherwise express very hostile opinions of activist judges, are now angry because judges adhered strictly to the law, ignored the underhanded "subpoenaes" and the idiotic "law" vomited forth from Capitol hill. Suddenly we have Republicans totally disregarding the Constitution and acting like little dictators toward the courts. Suddenly we have idiots like Sen Santorum spouting ignorant crap villifying judges who are doing their jobs and adhering to the law and we have conservative talk show hosts like Hannity jumping on the bandwagon.

Had such actions been taken by a Democratic administration on a cause opposed by Republicans, there would have been screeching and screaming which could have been heard all the way to Prudhoe Bay.

We send soldiers out to fight and die to defend the Constitution. We do this because we as a nation believe that the Constitution is worth defending at any cost. Well what the hell happened here? Did the Constitution suddenly go on sale? Is the issue of Terri Schiavo so all important that we would sacrifice the integrity of the separation of our three branches of government to save her? I'm not minimizing the importance or the sanctity of human life. But we should not attempt to save a person by degrading the fundamental structure of our government.

And for those who believe this is a one-shot incident, you'd better guess again. The lid on this particular Pandora's box has been pried open by over-zealous Republicans, some of whom neither understand nor respect the requirements of our Constitution. Republicans who claim to be conservative, yet their actions would warm the cockles of the hearts of the most liberal among us. Libs use the courts in an effort to trump the legislature. Now Republicans have used the legislature in an attempt to trump the courts. Neither action is acceptable. This particular Pandora's box contains potential abuses and perversions of our government heretofore undreamt of. Republicans opened the damn thing and you can bet your butt that liberals have salted this away and are licking their chops over the prospects presented by this kind of underhanded and fundamentally unconstitutional lawmaking. We the people had better slam the lid on this box damned quickly or we will come to regret it - and probably sooner than later.

The Schiavo court case has many areas which can be debated. But whatever the remedy may be, it should not involve tearing down the institutions of the government that we have defended for hundreds of years.

 

[Annie]

First I'd like to express my appreciation to everyone who shared their thoughts in this thread. The fact that we managed to get through this many posts without someone popping a cork was a noteworthy achievement.

The thing that I find most puzzling is the inverted philosophies of conservative posters versus those more liberal. Conservatives generally support strict interpretation of the law by the courts and tend to look in disfavor at Congressional shenanigans designed to benefit a very narrow constituency. Yet somehow, these same folks seem to have no problem with the fact that Congress passed a law which applies to only ONE person. These same people, who otherwise express very hostile opinions of activist judges, are now angry because judges adhered strictly to the law, ignored the underhanded "subpoenaes" and the idiotic "law" vomited forth from Capitol hill. Suddenly we have Republicans totally disregarding the Constitution and acting like little dictators toward the courts. Suddenly we have idiots like Sen Santorum spouting ignorant crap villifying judges who are doing their jobs and adhering to the law and we have conservative talk show hosts like Hannity jumping on the bandwagon.

Had such actions been taken by a Democratic administration on a cause opposed by Republicans, there would have been screeching and screaming which could have been heard all the way to Prudhoe Bay.

We send soldiers out to fight and die to defend the Constitution. We do this because we as a nation believe that the Constitution is worth defending at any cost. Well what the hell happened here? Did the Constitution suddenly go on sale? Is the issue of Terri Schiavo so all important that we would sacrifice the integrity of the separation of our three branches of government to save her? I'm not minimizing the importance or the sanctity of human life. But we should not attempt to save a person by degrading the fundamental structure of our government.

And for those who believe this is a one-shot incident, you'd better guess again. The lid on this particular Pandora's box has been pried open by over-zealous Republicans, some of whom neither understand nor respect the requirements of our Constitution. Republicans who claim to be conservative, yet their actions would warm the cockles of the hearts of the most liberal among us. Libs use the courts in an effort to trump the legislature. Now Republicans have used the legislature in an attempt to trump the courts. Neither action is acceptable. This particular Pandora's box contains potential abuses and perversions of our government heretofore undreamt of. Republicans opened the damn thing and you can bet your butt that liberals have salted this away and are licking their chops over the prospects presented by this kind of underhanded and fundamentally unconstitutional lawmaking. We the people had better slam the lid on this box damned quickly or we will come to regret it - and probably sooner than later.

The Schiavo court case has many areas which can be debated. But whatever the remedy may be, it should not involve tearing down the institutions of the government that we have defended for hundreds of years.

Excuse me? You didn't cover 'all conservatives'. Ahem!