• read more:
• « older
• newer »
•  · 
• home
• archives
• about
• contact

Terry Schiavo

Unless you have been living under a rock, the House of Representatives have been holding special sessions today - Palm Sunday - in order to attempt to override 10 Florida Judge's rulings; in order to override Terry Schiavo's legal guardian's rights; and finally to pander to the far Christian Conservative base which has found Terry Schiavo a perfect case to exploit for political gain.

The case is simple: 10 Florida State judges found in favor of Michael Schiavo, Terry Schiavo's legal guardian. His claim throughout is that Terry would not want to live in a persistent vegitative state - which every single doctor who has evaluated Terry has stated. So what is the House under Hastert and Delay trying to do? Honestly, it is nothing less than invalidating state judicial decisions purely because the end result does not fit the GOP's political aims. It does not matter one wit that if this bill passes, it will fundamentally change the interaction between state courts and the Congress.

If you don't believe me, here's Attorney Andrew Cohen with his opinion:

QUESTION: So the years of state-court litigation would be wiped off the map, as if it never took place?

ANSWER: If Congress gets its way, yes. That's why the legislators in Washington put the words "de novo" into the legislation, so that the federal courts would not be bound by anything the state courts in Florida had done. Terri Schiavo's parents still would have to convince the federal judge that her rights are being violated, and they would have to have the medical evidence to back that up (which they did not have in the state case), but the state case would not act as a mandated precedent in federal court.

QUESTION: What does that concept do the regular give and take between the court systems, the idea of comity and cooperation between judges?

ANSWER: It destroys it. But that's the whole point of this Congressional action. Not liking a particular result in a case that has been litigated fully and completely by a court with competent jurisdiction, Congress now has said that the game must be re-done with new rules that heavily favor one side over the other. The implications of this move are astonishing. Just think about it. Anytime Congress doesn't like the result in a particular case, it could swoop in and call a "do-over," which is essentially what this legislation represents. And this from a Congress that has for a decade or so tried to keep all sorts of citizens-- including disabled employees-- out of federal court. If this law is declared valid, no decision in any state court in the country will be immune from Congressional second-guessing. It would throw out of whack the entire concept of separation of powers. The constitutional law expert Tribe calls it "trial by legislation" and he is right.

QUESTION: You are getting agitated again. Doesn't the legislation specifically say that it does not "constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills"?

ANSWER: Yes, it says that. But so what. It said that the last time Congress did this and it didn't stop Congress from doing this now. Look, there is no other way to put it: this is the most blatant and egregious power-grab by one branch over another in my lifetime. Congress is intruding so far into the power of the judiciary, on behalf of a single family, that it is breathtaking. It truly will be fascinating to see how federal court judges react to this-- whether they simply bow down to this end-run or whether they back up their state-court colleagues. And it will be interesting in particular to see what the Supreme Court does with this case. Even the conservatives on the High Court-- and the Chief Justice in particular-- must be concerned about ,the precedent this sort of legislation would set.

My questions to Republicans are: What part of Federalism don't you understand? What happened to the party of "small government?" What happened to "State's Rights?" What happened to believing and respecting the Constitution? If every major life and death decision deserves Federal review, why did the GOP write this proposed bill to affect onlyTerry Schiavo? If they really believed in the principle, the bill would not be written only for Schiavo.

As I watch the proceedings in the House tonight, I can't help but find irony in the situation (by Digby):

By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country.

Those of us who read liberal blogs also understand that that the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo's care thus far.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are aware that the bankruptcy bill will make it even more difficult for families who suffer a catastrophic illness like Terry Schivos because they will not be able to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh start when the gargantuan medical bills become overwhelming.

And those of us who read liberal blogs also know that this grandstanding by the congress is a purely political move designed to appease the religious right and that the legal maneuverings being employed would be anathema to any true small government conservative.

Those who don't read liberal blogs, on the other hand, are seeing a spectacle on television in which the news anchors repeatedly say that the congress is "stepping in to save Terry Schiavo" mimicking the unctuous words of Tom Delay as they grovel and leer at the family and nod sympathetically at the sanctimonious phonies who are using this issue for their political gain.

I'm so disgusted right now - the House Goop'ers are trying to equate Civil Rights in the 60's with this bill and voting rights for women with this bill. Have they no shame?

. For more check out Rivka on the medical facts and David Velleman on the moral problems.

Comments

niklas says:

Posted by: niklas at March 21, 2005 11:33 AM #

Jw says:

Posted by: Jw at March 21, 2005 1:48 PM #

plemeljr says:

Posted by: plemeljr at March 21, 2005 1:55 PM #

dad says:

Posted by: dad at March 21, 2005 7:07 PM #

Shannon says:

Posted by: Shannon at March 25, 2005 9:33 PM #

plemeljr says:

Posted by: plemeljr at March 25, 2005 11:28 PM #

claudiine wilson says:

Posted by: claudiine wilson at March 31, 2005 1:17 PM #

plemeljr says:

Posted by: plemeljr at March 31, 2005 2:39 PM #

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)