GOP should change the party name

[SmarterThanYou]

Help me understand something here, Smarter. Don't the House's actions constitute something more along the lines of a stay than an imperious overruling of the state court? And doesn't that stay seem to act in the spirit of ensuring, beyond any conceivable doubt, that Terri receives due process? I don't see the harm or the impropriety. This sounds like precisely the kind of situation the XIVth Amendment was created for - certainly more so than protecting us from the scourge of nativity scenes.

that would depend on why this is limited to a state court. I'm surmising its limited to a state court because it doesn't have nation or federal implications, does that sound right? So, because this is limited to state implications, only state courts apply, especially when they are basing their decisions based entirely on florida law. In order for the feds to properly intervene and overrule the state courts decision, they would have to amend the constitution to provide their legal jurisdiction over medical and right to life matters.

 

[Avatar4321]

im so dizzy from all this spin.

the facts of the case ARE, terri said she did not want to be kept alive this way and the courts, AFTER being designated by the husband because of the parents challenge, ruled the same way.

Ok. show me her living will that says she would like to be put to death when she is in the conscious state she is in?

I refer you to the 10th amendment. let me post it for you.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Im familiar with the the 10th amendment. its one of my favorites. However, you and I seem to disagree that the protection of life is a power delaged to the United States. And of course we need to factor in the 14th amendment another one of my favorites which checks the powers of the states from depriving people of life and liberty without due process. Congress has the power to give federal courts jurisidiction limited jurisdiction in this case due process in the federal courts.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Ok. show me her living will that says she would like to be put to death when she is in the conscious state she is in?

she doesn't need one. nobody ever has been required to have one because the word of the spouse has always been the precedent. The only reason its an issue now is you have parents who won't let go of their hope against a slew of doctors diagnosis.

Im familiar with the the 10th amendment. its one of my favorites. However, you and I seem to disagree that the protection of life is a power delaged to the United States. And of course we need to factor in the 14th amendment another one of my favorites which checks the powers of the states from depriving people of life and liberty without due process. Congress has the power to give federal courts jurisidiction limited jurisdiction in this case due process in the federal courts.

Due process has been ongoing for the last 5 years. Just because you didn't like the outcome doesn't mean it wasn't done. All that you are doing now is attempting to usurp states rights and jurisdictions and this has long reaching consequences, especially with a hastily put together house bill.

 

[dilloduck]

she doesn't need one. nobody ever has been required to have one because the word of the spouse has always been the precedent. The only reason its an issue now is you have parents who won't let go of their hope against a slew of doctors diagnosis.


Due process has been ongoing for the last 5 years. Just because you didn't like the outcome doesn't mean it wasn't done. All that you are doing now is attempting to usurp states rights and jurisdictions and this has long reaching consequences, especially with a hastily put together house bill.

Sorta like how Rowe V Wade usurps states rights you mean ?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Sorta like how Rowe V Wade usurps states rights you mean ?

yes, it does. its a ruling i think needs to be overturned. I've never said differently.

 

[musicman]

that would depend on why this is limited to a state court. I'm surmising its limited to a state court because it doesn't have nation or federal implications, does that sound right? So, because this is limited to state implications, only state courts apply, especially when they are basing their decisions based entirely on florida law. In order for the feds to properly intervene and overrule the state courts decision, they would have to amend the constitution to provide their legal jurisdiction over medical and right to life matters.

Ah, but where state law comes into conflict with the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights must prevail, mustn't it? This seems like a case of simply ensuring, beyond any doubt, that Terri has received due process before she is deprived of her life. I just can't see the impropriety here.

This is a side note, but didn't someone post - a few days back - that a slew of reputable physicians had signed an affadavidt expressing dismay over the presiding judge's single-minded determination to forbid access to Terri, and halt all further testing? If memory serves, they were of the opinion that the judge had reached the conclusion he wanted, and simply didn't want to hear another word about it - despite the fact that the tests they sought were quite reasonable. I think either Bonnie or Gem posted it; sorry I don't have it at hand, but I'll do a little digging. Anyway, these weren't passionate family members blinded by grief - they were respected doctors. Has anyone heard any more about this, or if anything has come of it? Off the immediate topic, I know - but I think it would be of interest.

 

[dilloduck]

yes, it does. its a ruling i think needs to be overturned. I've never said differently.

Kudos---I appreciate the consistency !

 

[Annie]

Kudos---I appreciate the consistency !

where were you all day when I was arguing the same? :tng:

 

[dilloduck]

where were you all day when I was arguing the same? :tng:

fishing

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Ah, but where state law comes into conflict with the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights must prevail, mustn't it? This seems like a case of simply ensuring, beyond any doubt, that Terri has received due process before she is deprived of her life. I just can't see the impropriety here.

then what you're saying really, is that all state courts MUST have their decisions reviewed by the federal system because they aren't capable of making life/death decisions. so again, i'll ask, what happens if it goes through to the USSC and its determined that the florida court was right all along?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

where were you all day when I was arguing the same? :tng:

you had it well under hand. I didn't see the need to overweigh the issue.

 

[Annie]

you had it well under hand. I didn't see the need to overweigh the issue.

Me? back atcha!

 

[musicman]

then what you're saying really, is that all state courts MUST have their decisions reviewed by the federal system because they aren't capable of making life/death decisions.

I don't think that federal review is contra-indicated out of hand (otherwise, the XIVth Amendment would be a toothless tiger), nor do I think that it NECESSARILY violates states rights. What about presidential pardons?

so again, i'll ask, what happens if it goes through to the USSC and its determined that the florida court was right all along?

Then, at least, the law has been served.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I don't think that federal review is contra-indicated out of hand (otherwise, the XIVth Amendment would be a toothless tiger), nor do I think that it NECESSARILY violates states rights. What about presidential pardons?

what mechanism is preventing the feds from reviewing this currently?

 

[musicman]

what mechanism is preventing the feds from reviewing this currently?

The courts, you mean? Beats the hell out of me, Smarter. The time factor, maybe?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

The courts, you mean? Beats the hell out of me, Smarter. The time factor, maybe?

not what I mean. as it stands right now, the schindlers have not filed in a federal court. that is what congress is trying to vote in as we speak. so what is it that prevents them right now?

 

[musicman]

not what I mean. as it stands right now, the schindlers have not filed in a federal court. that is what congress is trying to vote in as we speak. so what is it that prevents them right now?

I'm sorry to be so thick - prevents who from doing what?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I'm sorry to be so thick - prevents who from doing what?

i was referring to the schindlers being prevented from appealing to the federal courts. I think I found what I was looking for though.

heres a timeline i found on http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

November 1984… Terri & Michael marry
February 1990… Terri suffers cardiac arrest and a severe loss of oxygen to her brain
May 1990… Terri leaves hospital and is brought to a rehabiliation center for aggressive therapy
July 1990… Terri is brought to the home where her husband and parents live; after a few weeks, she is brought back to the rehabilitation center
November 1990… Terri is taken to California for experimental therapies
January 1991… Terri is returned to Florida and placed at a rehabilitation center in Brandon
July 1991… Terri is transfered to a skilled nursing facility where she receives aggressive physical therapy and speech therapy
May 1992… Michael and the Schindlers stop living together
January 1993… Michael recovers $1 million settlement for medical malpractice claim involving Terri's care; jury had ruled in Michael's favor on allegations Terri's doctors failed to diagnose her bulimia, which led to her heart failure; case settled while on appeal
March 1994… Terri is transferred to a Largo nursing home
May 1998… Michael files petition for court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed; Michael takes position that Terri would chose to remove the tube; Terri's parents take position that Terri would chose not to remove the tube
February 2000… Following trial, Judge Greer rules that clear and convincing evidence shows Terri would chose not to receive life-prolonging medical care under her current circumstances (i.e., that she would chose to have the tube removed)
March 2000… Judge Greer denies petition for more swallowing tests, finds it uncontested Terri cannot swallow sufficiently to live
April 2000… Terri is transferred to a Hospice facility
January 2001… Second District Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's decision regarding Terri's wishes
April 23, 2001… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision
April 23 or 24, 2001… Trial court orders feeding tube removed
April 24, 2001… Terri's feeding tube is removed for the first time
April 26, 2001… Terri's parents file motion asserting they have new evidence regarding Terri's wishes
April 26, 2001… Trial court denies Terri's parents' motion as untimely
April 26, 2001… Terri's parents file new legal action against Michael Schiavo and request that the removal of Terri's feeding tube be enjoined; the case is randomly assigned to Judge Quesada
April 26, 2001… Judge Quesada grants the temporary injunction, orders Terri's feeding tube restored
July 2001… Second District rules that Judge Greer erred in denying the motion alleging new evidence and, in essence, orders the trial court to consider whether new circumstances make enforcement of the original order inequitable; Second District also reverses the temporary injunction and orders dismissal of much of the new action filed before Judge Quesada
(uncertain)… Terri's parents detail their reasons why enforcement is inequitable: (1) new witnesses have new information regarding Terri's wishes, and (2) new medical treatment could sufficiently restore Terri's cognitive functioning such that Terri would decide that, under those circumstances, she would continue life-prolonging measures; Terri's parents also move to disqualify Judge Greer
(uncertain)… Trial court denies both motions as insufficient
October 2001… Second District affirms the denial of the motion to disqualify and the motion regarding the new witnesses; the appellate court reverses the order with regard to potential new medical treatments and orders a trial on that question with doctors testifying for both sides and a court-appointed independent doctor
March 2002… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision
October 2002… Judge Greer holds a trial on the new medical treatment issue, hearing from doctors for both sides and a court-appointed independent doctor; Terri's parents also assert that Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state
Schindlers file emergency motion for relief from judgment based on a 1991 bone scan report indicating Terri's body had previously been subjected to trauma
November 22, 2002… Following trial, Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion for relief (new medical evidence motion), rules that no new treatment offers sufficient promise of improving Terri's cognitive functioning and that Terri is, in fact, in a persistent vegetative state
November 22, 2002… On this same day, Judge Greer denies Schindlers' emergency motion related to the 1991 bone scan
June 2003… Second District affirms the trial court's decision denying Schindlers' motion for relief from judgment
August 22, 2003… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision
August 30, 2003… Terri's parents file federal action challenging Florida's laws on life-prolonging procedures as unconstitutional
September 17, 2003… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion to provide additional therapy, finding it an effort to retry the issues that were previously tried
October 10, 2003… Federal court dismisses Schindlers' case
October 15, 2003… Terri's feeding tube is removed for the second time
October 20, 2003… Florida House passes a bill to permit the Governor to issue a stay in cases like Terri's and restore her feeding tube
October 21, 2003… Federal court rejects injunction request
October 21, 2003… Florida House and Senate pass a bill known informally as "Terri's Law" to permit the Governor to issue a stay in cases like Terri's and restore her feeding tube; Governor signs the bill into law and immediately orders a stay; Terri is briefly hospitalized while her feeding tube is restored
October 21, 2003… Michael brings suit against the Governor, asking to enjoin the Governor's stay on grounds "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional; Judge Baird rejects Michael's request for an immediate injunction, allowing the tube to be restored, and requests briefs on the constitutional arguments involving the new law
November 7, 2003… Judge Baird rejects Governor's motion to dismiss Michael's suit and have case litigated in Tallahassee
November 20, 2003… Judge Baird rejects Governor's request for the judge to recuse himself
December 1, 2003… Guardian ad litem appointed under "Terri's Law" to advise Governor submits report to Governor
December 10, 2003… Second District rejects Governor's effort to have Judge Baird disqualified
April 2004… Second District affirms Judge Baird's decision denying Governor's motion to dismiss and have case litigated in Tallahassee
May 2004… Judge Baird declares "Terri's Law" unconstitutional on numerous grounds
June 2004… Second District certifies "Terri's Law" case directly to the Florida Supreme Court
July 2004… Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment based on Pope John Paul II speech
September 2004… Florida Supreme Court affirms Judge Baird's ruling that "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional
October 2004… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment (motion based on Pope John Paul II speech)
December 1, 2004… Governor asks U.S. Supreme Court to review Florida Supreme Court's decision declaring "Terri's Law" unconstitutional
December 29, 2004… Second District affirms (without written opinion) Judge Greer's ruling denying Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment
January 6, 2005… Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment, alleging Terri never had her own attorney, that the trial court impermissibly applied the law retroactively, and that the original trial on Terri's wishes violated separation of powers principles
January 24, 2005… U.S. Supreme Court declines review in "Terri's Law" case
February 11, 2005… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' latest motion for relief from judgment (motion raising various due process challenges)
February 23, 2005… Florida's Department of Children and Families asks to intervene and for 60-day stay to permit investigation of alleged abuse
February 23, 2005… Schindlers file motion requesting new tests to determine Terri's status
February 25, 2005… Judge Greer rules motions appear endless, he will grant no further stays; sets March 18 date for removal of feeding tube
February 28, 2005… Schindlers file motion requesting that Terri be fed orally
March 2, 2005… Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment, arguing factual error in original judgment
March 8, 2005… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion to feed Terri orally
March 9, 2005… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion requesting new tests
March 9, 2005… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment (motion based on factual error)
March 10, 2005… Judge Greer denies Department of Children and Families request to intervene and for stay, finds agency is free to investigate
March 16, 2005… Second District affirms Judge Greer's denial of Schindlers' motion raising various due process challenges, emphasizes law has been followed in this case
March 18, 2005… Schindlers file new federal action arguing due process violations in original trial; case assigned to Judge Moody
March 18, 2005… Judge Moody denies new federal claim, citing lack of jurisdiction
March 18, 2005… Congressional committee issues subpoenas for Michael, Terri, and Terri's caregivers to appear at hearing to be held at the hospice where Terri has stayed
March 18, 2005… Congressional committee files motion to intervene and modify order requiring the removal of Terri's feeding tube
March 18, 2005… Judge Greer denies congressional committee motion, ruling no grounds exist for intervention
March 18, 2005… Congressional committee requests Florida Supreme Court and Second District stay the feeding tube's removal
March 18, 2005… Terri's feeding tube removed for the third time
March 18, 2005… Florida Supreme Court denies congressional committee request, citing lack of jurisdiction

 

[Annie]

I don't think it right, but it's done:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050321/ap_on_go_co/schiavo_congress

Senate Passes Legislation on Schiavo Case

33 minutes ago Politics - U. S. Congress


By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Senate passed a bill that could prolong Terri Schiavo's life while House Republicans, stalled by Democrats, scrambled to bring enough lawmakers back to the Capitol for an emergency vote early Monday.



President Bush (news - web sites) rushed back from his Texas ranch for a chance to sign the measure that Republicans view as an opportunity to strengthen their support among religious conservatives ahead of next year's congressional elections.


Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., said Sunday that Schiavo and members of her family have "become political pawns to larger political issues."


GOP leaders planned a House vote just past midnight, hours after the Senate approved the bill by voice vote.


The White House said the president would act as soon as the measure reaches him.


"We ought to err on the side of life in a case like this," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. Asked about a bill that would cover a single person, he said, "I think most people recognize that this case involves some extraordinary circumstances."


House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said the federal district court in Florida, which is open 24 hours a day, had already been informed that a petition would be filed as soon as the president signs the measure — with the presumption a judge will order that the tube be replaced.


"Time is not on Terri Schiavo's side," DeLay said. "The few remaining objecting House Democrats have so far cost Mrs.Schiavo two meals already today."


Even though the legislation would pave an avenue for federal jurisdiction in the legal case, there was no way to determine in advance how or when a judge would rule — or even which judge would be assigned the case by lottery.


Lawmakers who left Washington on Friday for the two-week Easter recess had to make abrupt changes in plans, backtracking for a dramatic and politically contentious vote.


Democrats expressed sympathy for the severely brain-damaged Florida woman and for the plight of her family. But they also accused Republicans of ramming through constitutionally questionable legislation to satisfy the agenda of their conservative allies.


In a special session Sunday afternoon, Democrats refused to allow the bill to be passed without a roll call vote.


Under House rules, such a vote could not occur until Monday, thus the plans for a vote at 12:01 a.m. Monday at which at least 218 of the 435-member House must appear. Also, because it was an expedited vote, the measure needed votes from two-thirds of those present for passage.


The House has 232 Republicans, 202 Democrats and one independent.


The legislation would give Schiavo's parents the right to file suit in federal court over the withdrawal of food and medical treatment needed to sustain the life of their daughter.


It says the court, after determining the merits of the suit, "shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights" of the woman. Injunctive relief in this case could mean the reinserting of feeding tubes.


"It gives Terri Schiavo another chance," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said after the late-afternoon voice vote in a near-empty Senate chamber. "It guarantees a process to help Terri, but does not guarantee a particular outcome."

Frist also noted that the bill, responding to some Democratic objections, does not affect state assisted suicide laws or serve as a precedent for future legislation.

A Senate bill passed by the House is returned to the Senate enrollment clerk's office where it is printed on parchment and, when speed is important, driven immediately to the White House by Senate personnel. There, the White House clerk takes custody of the legislation and prepares it for the president to sign into law. The procedure is routine when quick action is important, such as on overdue budget bills, and can be handled in minutes as opposed to hours.

The White House made arrangements for Bush to sign the measure at any hour, although without fanfare.

Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said members scattered across the globe were being summoned back to Washington by aides to House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

Blunt's office sent a notice to members on their handheld computers Friday to be prepared to return to Washington on Sunday, said spokeswoman Burson Taylor.

In emergencies, when that does not work, the whip's office activates a phone tree, where one member is charged with calling the next. "We do anticipate a quorum," she said.

Smith added, "It should come as no surprise to any members reading a newspaper or watching TV. Smith canceled an official trip to Albania to escort Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler, to Capitol Hill press conferences Sunday.

The Democratic whip, Rep. Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record), D-Md., said his office was informing members of the vote and not discouraging them from returning to the capital. But he said the party was not counting votes and was telling members to vote their conscience on the issue.

Schiavo has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. Her feeding tubes were removed Friday afternoon at the request of her husband, who says that his wife expressed to him before she fell ill that she did not want to be kept alive under such circumstances.

House and Senate committees at the end of the week issued subpoenas seeking to force the continuation of treatment, but that move was rejected by a Florida court.

Schiavo could linger for one or two weeks if the tube is not reinserted, as has happened twice before.

Republicans defined their extraordinary efforts in the context of the sanctity of life: "A society is judged by the way that it treats its most vulnerable citizens," said Rep. Mike Pence (news, bio, voting record), R-Ind.

"No person in America should be deprived of the right to life without due process of law and Terri Schiavo is no different," Pence said.

But Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., spoke of "the manifestation of a constitutional crisis" where Congress, for ideological reasons, was ignoring the separations of power written into the Constitution.

Republicans distanced themselves from a memo suggesting GOP lawmakers could use the case to appeal to Christian conservative voters and to force Democrats into a difficult vote.

"I hope we're not ... making this human tragedy a political issue," Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., told ABC's "This Week." "We've got plenty of other issues that are political in nature for us to fight about."

 

[SmarterThanYou]

this is how hypocritical this is.....

A patient's inability to pay for medical care combined with a prognosis that renders further care futile are two reasons a hospital might suggest cutting off life support, the chief medical officer at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital said Monday.

Dr. David Pate's comments came as the family of Spiro Nikolouzos fights to keep St. Luke's from turning off the ventilator and artificial feedings keeping the 68-year-old grandfather alive.

St. Luke's notified Jannette Nikolouzos in a March 1 letter that it would withdraw life-sustaining care of her husband of 34 years in 10 days, which would be Friday. Mario Caba-llero, the attorney representing the family, said he is seeking a two-week extension, at minimum, to give the man more time to improve and to give his family more time to find an alternative facility.

Caballero said he would discuss that issue with hospital attorneys today.

Pate said he could not address Nikolouzos' case specifically because he doesn't have permission from the family but could talk about the situation in general.

"If there is agreement on the part of all the physicians that the patient does have an irreversible, terminal illness," he said, "we're not going to drag this on forever ...

"When the hospital is really correct and the care is futile ... you're not going to find many hospitals or long-term acute care facilities (that) want to take that case," he said. "Any facility that's going to be receiving a patient in that condition ... is going to want to be paid for it, of course."
a bill signed by George Bush as governor.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3073295

Life-Support Stopped for 6-Month-Old in Houston

Yesterday Sun Hudson, the nearly 6-month-old at Texas Children's Hospital in Houston, diagnosed and slowly dying with a rare form of dwarfism (thanatophoric dysplasia), was taken off the ventilator that was keeping him alive. A Houston court authorized the hospital's action, and Sun died shortly thereafter. Today's Houston Chronicle and Dallas Morning News have most of the details.

Both papers report that this is the first time in the United States a court has allowed life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn from a pediatric patient over the objections of the child's parent. (The Dallas paper quotes John Paris, a bioethicist at Boston College, as its source.) If true, the unique Texas statute under which this saga was played out contributed in no small way to the outcome. As one of the laws co-authors (along with a roomful of other drafters, in 1999) let me explain.

Under chapter 166 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, if an attending physician disagrees with a surrogate over a life-and-death treatment decision, there must be an ethics committee consultation (with notice to the surrogate and an opportunity to participate). In a futility case such as Sun Hudson's, in which the treatment team is seeking to stop treatment deemed to be nonbeneficial, if the ethics committee agrees with the team, the hospital will be authorized to discontinue the disputed treatment (after a 10-day delay, during which the hospital must help try to find a facility that will accept a transfer of the patient). These provisions, which were added to Texas law in 1999, originally applied only to adult patients; in 2003; they were made applicable to disputes over treatment decisions for or on behalf of minors. (I hasten to add that one of the co-drafters in both 1999 and 2003 was the National Right to Life Committee. Witnesses who testified in support of the bill in 1999 included representatives of National Right to Life, Texas Right to Life, and the Hemlock Society. Our bill passed both houses, unanimously, both years, and the 1999 law was signed by then Governor George W. Bush.)

lawprofessors