It Has Begun

[elsol]

All of this and it might have been for naught on either side.

The Judge that caught the case:

Whittemore, James D.
Born 1952 in Walterboro, SC

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
Nominated by William J. Clinton on October 20, 1999, to a new seat created by 113 Stat. 1501; Confirmed by the Senate on May 24, 2000, and received commission on May 25, 2000.

And his ruling IS (drumroll please)

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Brain Damaged Woman


Joy... now we move to the Federal Appeals, who will most likely agree with the Whittemore... and the SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case for the SECOND time.

And all this Republican effort just managed to further put people that already supported them in their pockets... and alienated more people.

Oh... I forgot: Let the vilification of a Republican put on the federal bench by a Democrat who has no measurable political leanings and is as by the book as they come, called 'fair and just' by even lawyers who lose in his courtroom,... begin!


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Um... yeah

I think this is what we might lable histeria. Keeping a woman alive as per her family wishes [and letting her have legal representation which is routinly given to even the youngest infant involved in legeslation involving it's welfare] is not going to lead to mandatory KJV's in every household.

I hate to say it but... get a grip.

You talk about propaganda and bias. I don't know what else would describe your above post. It's completly fear based and irrational, and I've come to expect better from you. (on most topics at least)

Hysterical? Hardly.

If you will take a look, you will find the federal judge hearing the case didn't move fast enought to suit the parents. So they filed an appeal with the 11th circut in Atlanta.

Now, you not only have a federal court hearing a case it has no jurisdiction over, save for jurisdiction provided by this law, you will have a federal appeals court hearing it. In short, the precedent is being set medical matters are the province of the federal courts now. Where they were not before.

It's not fear based, nor irrational. It's based on an understanding of the court system. An understanding that judges rulings are based as much on precedent and case law as they are on the written law.

I have a grip. It's a pretty good one. I see what's happening, apparently a lot better than you do. You want to see this as one woman's situation and you want her to live. You want her to live so badly, you are willing to applaud extra judicial means to save her life. You are willing to cheer for a federal law cobbled together to strip the state judiciary of it's ability to render a decision in a matter heretofore considered state's rights. You are happy to see the legislature set aside a decision of the judiciary it dosen't like and "correct" that decision via legislation. To you, all's fair to save Teri.

What you don't see, either through ignornance of how things work, or though myopic concentration on Teri's life, is that precedent is being set. Precedent that can be applied later, perhaps to things you don't want it to. For example, Massachucetts has decided gays can marry. If 3 members of the senate, all republicans, and a few republican senators got together on a holiday weekend and set aside the Mass. ruling, stripped the Mass. court of it's jurisdiction over them matter (marriage also being a reserve power of the states), and passed it on to a federal court packed with Bush appointtees, you would be screaming bloody murder.

But you have give up your right to scream. You are already in the cheering section for extraordinary congressional action to over turn court decisions they don't like. You were all for the establishment of the precedent they can and should act, when they feel a court makes a "bad" decision. In short, you happily cheered them on when they set this precedent, and when they come after things you don't want them messing with, how will you argue it? On what basis is the Mass. state court decision any different from the Florida decision? In a court of law it's not. And in terms of precedent set, it's not. And your grounds for decrying such a move? You have none. You surrndered them joyously defending the right of the federal legislature to set aside state court decisions and have them heard in federal courts, even if the federal courts had no jurisdiction over them in the first place.

Law is not applied to one person or one case. Each new piece of legislation, each court decision, each example of case law and precedent, have far reaching effects. In the Name of Keeping Teri from having her feeding tube removed, you are suporting changes in the basic way the system of checks and balances that keep the judiciary independent work. Considering many of your more liberal viewsa re championed only by the courts, you seem very happy to see the right assert it's dominion over those courts.

Sorry imp, had to respond to this.

 

[elsol]

Actually... I have to wonder at something Whittmore did.

He 'assumed' the constitutionality of the law to make a decision on the issue.

That I don't like because by delivering a judgement on the issue, the precedent is set that the law is in fact constitutional. If the federal court refuses to hear it, then you have case law.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Op_Cit]

Actually... I have to wonder at something Whittmore did.

He 'assumed' the constitutionality of the law to make a decision on the issue.

That I don't like because by delivering a judgement on the issue, the precedent is set that the law is in fact constitutional. If the federal court refuses to hear it, then you have case law.

Sincerely,
ElSol

Little known thing about case law: Not all cases get published for use in case law. (i.e. for citing as precedent or argument in other future cases--I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the correct terminology.)

A local Libertarian activist learned this after bringing a case up he knew would lose just to get the state's claims on record. He then found out later when going to look up the prior case that it didn't count because the judge (or somebody from the government) didn't want the decision used that way and didn't publish it.

And if you think any judge lets the issue of constitutionality get in the way of doing what he wants to do, you've not much experience with the courts.

It is not unknown (though it is supposed to be illegal) for some judges to edit the transcripts (cutting out or changing what was said). Why else would they make it illegal for you to take a tape recorder into a court room?

Anyway, like I said earlier, I think there's bigger issues not being talked about and that the decision will not be overturned. More, I think that probably every legislator that voted for this legislation knew that it wouldn't get overturned, and so this was a "safe" vote: they appease their conservative constituents, and to the liberals they shrug and say, "All we were asking for was judicial review."

OC
P.S. somebody remind me to eat my hat if at some point in the chain of judges they overturn the decision (before she dies).

 

[impressive]

Congress doesn't give a shit anymore whether she lives or dies while the appeals are argued. It got what it wanted -- precedent -- at her expense. She's useless to them any more.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Here's a lesson on how to properly raise hysteria.



Now that is something that I did not know... not about Terri's law but that a Bill could pass with 3 votes because no one else was around. That's very interesting, and the Republicans are going to regret it.

Either the Democrats will come to see this is as fair tactic now... or if they ever get power again, they'll fix it.

Bad political strategy on the Republicans side when they already have the majority, there was no point to get dirty like this.

This was something that they should have saved for something much more important.

Sincerely,
ElSol

do you have a link?

We have a contradiction here, becauses MSNBC reports:

"On the roll call vote, 156 Republicans and 47 Democrats voted for the bill, while five Republicans and 53 Democrats voted against it. Another 174 members did not vote."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7243574/

 

[impressive]

do you have a link?

We have a contradiction here, becauses MSNBC reports:

"On the roll call vote, 156 Republicans and 47 Democrats voted for the bill, while five Republicans and 53 Democrats voted against it. Another 174 members did not vote."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7243574/

That's the House vote, sweet.

 

[Op_Cit]

do you have a link?

We have a contradiction here, becauses MSNBC reports:

"On the roll call vote, 156 Republicans and 47 Democrats voted for the bill, while five Republicans and 53 Democrats voted against it. Another 174 members did not vote."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7243574/

That's for the house, what do they say about the senate? (that's what I thought El was talking about.)

 

[sweetnpetite]

That's for the house, what do they say about the senate? (that's what I thought El was talking about.)

I'm not sure, I'm looking for that information, so I would still appreciate a link to the quote. [or better yet to official vote records which i'm looking for]

 

[sweetnpetite]

Oddly, I can't find anything about the Senate. [would still like the link]

I would however point out that the meeting was not exactly secret since the whole country and probably the world new about it. If Senators wished to vote against it, they should have attended and voted against it. They had the opportunity to do so. If we're going to be upset- perhaps we should be upset at the Senators who simply chose not to attend or regester their objection. Rather than the few Senators who showed up and did what they said they were going to do and ended up being faced with no objection.

just a thought.

 

[sweetnpetite]

"Other motions by the Schindlers ask that some news reporters be allowed to see Terri Schiavo's interactions with her parents, since they contend she responds to them; that they be allowed to take pictures with her before she dies and that those photographs not become Michael Schiavo's property, as a current court order now requires; that she be allowed to die at home; and that they be allowed to bury her rather than the cremation her husband has planned."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149056,00.html

Yes I know this is a biased website.

Why should photos her family takes become his property? Why would a loving husband have her cremated when she is catholic?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Oddly, I can't find anything about the Senate. [would still like the link]

I would however point out that the meeting was not exactly secret since the whole country and probably the world new about it. If Senators wished to vote against it, they should have attended and voted against it. They had the opportunity to do so. If we're going to be upset- perhaps we should be upset at the Senators who simply chose not to attend or regester their objection. Rather than the few Senators who showed up and did what they said they were going to do and ended up being faced with no objection.

just a thought.

That argument might hold some water, were it done during a regular session. It was however, an extraordinary session, called over the holidays. Many senators had already left washington, some, Like Ploesti, had left the country. The senate version was passed, sans debate, with almost no senator in attendance, and without even the 24 hours notice the house vote took. That vote, I might add, wasn't able to be taken early because a represenative protested, they did try to get it passed over the weekend too. So they had to wait until they had a majority of reps present to vote. There was no one there to protest the senates action.

 

[angela146]

If I were in this situation the fight would be reversed. My husband would be fighting to keep me alive (according to my wishes) and my family of origin would be fighting to have the feeding tube removed.

For this reason, I feel for both sides.

I have little trust of doctors, especially when they say that someone is beyond hope. Brain plasticity continually suprises medical scientists. When massive parts of the brain are distroyed, the other parts of the brain can adapt and take over their function.

On the other hand, Mrs. Schiavo made her wishes clear to her husband and it should be her husband who is making these decisions. It should not be for me, her parents, congress, or anyone else to decide.

So... if it were up to me (and thank God it isn't) I would leave it in her husband's hands. Even if he is wrong about her state of conciousness (and I believe he is wrong) it is a close enough call that he has the right to be wrong.

Even if she is not in a persistant vegetative state, it should be her husband's decision as to whether she would want to be kept alive in the state she is currently in.

 

[angela146]

By the way, this is another reason why we need to allow and respect same-sex marriage. It would give the wife/husband the power to make these kinds of decisions and make it more difficult for the parents, siblings and children to interfere.

 

[CrimsonMaiden]

Parents lost appeal: story here

Not trying to start debate anew but thought people might want the update.

 

[elsol]

Oddly, I can't find anything about the Senate. [would still like the link]

I would however point out that the meeting was not exactly secret since the whole country and probably the world new about it. If Senators wished to vote against it, they should have attended and voted against it. They had the opportunity to do so. If we're going to be upset- perhaps we should be upset at the Senators who simply chose not to attend or regester their objection. Rather than the few Senators who showed up and did what they said they were going to do and ended up being faced with no objection.

just a thought.

It was VERY early on Sunday morning, I'm cool with propaganda but please... keep it at some level of reasonable.

It's hard not to see 'midnight tactic' written all over what the Senators did.

Here's the least 'biased' link.

It was very informative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo

I got the other stuff by googling things from wikipedia.

My favorite tactic was 'calling Terri Schiavo' as a witness to key the 'don't interfere with someone testifying' thing.

Very cute...


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[elsol]

Parents lost appeal: story here

Not trying to start debate anew but thought people might want the update.

And on to the Supreme Court...

My bet... if they take it... it will be to smack the law.

More than likely, they will refuse to hear the case.

One bit of good news:

Meanwhile, President Bush (news - web sites) suggested that he and Congress had done their best to help the parents prolong Schiavo's life, and the White House said it has no further legal options.

I think the Repubs are beginning to see that this one pissed off the middle a bit more than they were expecting.


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[SlickTony]

Here's what a Jesuit bioethecist had to say about it, and incidentally, there could be chaos coming to the Vatican sometime soon because the Pope doesn't have a living will either...

 

[Kassiana]

He 'assumed' the constitutionality of the law to make a decision on the issue.
--He'd have to. Only the Supreme Court can decide if a federal law is Constitutional according to the Federal Constitution, just like only a state Supreme Court can decide if a state law is Constitutional according to the state Constitution. Whittemore isn't a Supreme Court justice. He CAN'T decide if the law is constitutional or not.

by delivering a judgement on the issue, the precedent is set that the law is in fact constitutional.
--Until the Supreme Court rules on it, yes, but the Court can still decide it's unconstitutional no matter how much federal judicial precedent there is.

 

[elsol]

He 'assumed' the constitutionality of the law to make a decision on the issue.
--He'd have to. Only the Supreme Court can decide if a federal law is Constitutional according to the Federal Constitution, just like only a state Supreme Court can decide if a state law is Constitutional according to the state Constitution. Whittemore isn't a Supreme Court justice. He CAN'T decide if the law is constitutional or not.

Any federal judge can declare a law unconstitutional, so can the appeals court by overturning a decision by a federal judge that a law is constitutional or not.

This is actually a very easy way of getting into the Supreme Court.

Have two different Federal judges in different districts come to different decision about a law's consitutionality... if the federal appeals court's don't flatten the decision into ONE decision then the Supreme Court almost has to take the issue up because it means non-equal protection depending on what Federal District you live in.

Whittmore could have and I say SHOULD HAVE taken the time to decide on the law itself... this was a big enough issue to say 'Reinsert the tube to give us time to decide if this law is even constitutional... it's gone beyond Terri Schiavo now."

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Kassiana]

Oh, okay, I see what you're saying. I thought you were saying he could have unilaterally declared it unconstitutional, for everyone.

I still am suffering from this flu/cold thing. Apparently it's interfering with my comprehension this morning. Sorry.

 

[elsol]

Oh, okay, I see what you're saying. I thought you were saying he could have unilaterally declared it unconstitutional, for everyone.

I still am suffering from this flu/cold thing. Apparently it's interfering with my comprehension this morning. Sorry.

I don't think he should have 'unilaterally declared it unconstitutional'.

I think there is now a bigger issue for all of us than Terri Schiavo's life... the politicians made it a bigger issue.

I don't see a resolution to the bigger issue from either the federal court or the federal court of appeals... that's bothering me because I don't want the state's rights issue to fall to the wayside and for Congress to assume 'Oh, we can do this from now on."

I understand the life and death issue, but stick the tube back in and unravel this cock up... there is nowhere else to go so since we're on the track, let's ride it out.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Kassiana]

I meant like the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional and it's unconstitutional for everyone.

Sigh...never mind. I can't speak clearly enough to make my points understood this morning.

 

[elsol]

I meant like the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional and it's unconstitutional for everyone.

Sigh...never mind. I can't speak clearly enough to make my points understood this morning.

Ah... is okay!

Get better!

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Pure]

a dog up the street was 'disabled' and could walk down the front steps to the lawn. so the owner carried the dog's hips so the dog could get to the front lawn. i recently met the owner, and the dog's situation had worsened to where he could not walk at all. he was put to sleep.

when a thing can't fulfill its function, its life is over. that is 'nature' and 'natural law.' a tiger that can't hunt, dies.

humans have 'higher functions,' and Stephen Hawking can think, communicate and 'write books' though at a grave physicl disability.

there is no evidence that TS can do cognizing or communicating; there is no evidence of 'life of the mind.' so her time is over, and only the zealots was to go against God, nature, and Terri's wishes.