Democrats & Liberals: Archives

AP,

It’s my understanding that the body that everyone is fighting over is, in reality, no longer Terri Schiavo. The cerebral cortex is basicly mush, and that which was Terri Schiavo is now long gone.
One is reminded of vultures picking away at a life that once was.
What is also amazing, is the priorities that our elected officials seem to have. This bill was passed in the dead of night, and Mr. Bush flew back to Washington to sign this bill into law after midnight last night.

The way this whole thing has been treated is rather ghoulish.

Let us celebrate the soul that was Terri Schiavo, and let the body move on.

My problem is with Congressional Republicans constantly overriding the state judiciary - taking justice out of the hands of judges elected by us, and having it meted out by political appointees.

The Judiciary was put there for a reason. The Supreme court has twice refused to hear this case.

Lets hope that the Congress can discover it’s real job discription, and actually do the people’s business.

I’m not holding my breath.

I’m curious if the Red Team knows about what’s all over the liberal blogs now: a state law which allows a hospital to “pull the plug” on patients that are terminal but still conscious against the wishes of the next-of-kin - depending on the patients ability to pay. Recently a 6-month -old baby died under this policy. And it’s close to home for DeLay, who was so outraged by poor Shiavo, as a Texas State law, signed by Dubya himself.

William,
Where in that article did it say they ‘pulled the plug’ because of the inability to pay?

Apparently this is the kind of government and leadership (and I use the term very, very loosly) people seem to want; at least a little more then half the poeple.

dawn - if I’m remembering correctly, another news article I read on the case noted that their insurance ran out shortly before the hospital decided to discontinue care.

No, we don’t have a real constitutional crisis until we see the courts fail to strike down this unconstitutional invasion of the separation of powers. I do think, however, that it’s unfortunate that the congress has chosen to take things to this point. The have lost respect for the law, and become the very kind of invasive power they falsely painted the Democrats as. They don’t have respect for the necessary restrictions on power that keep our country from being one of those hypocritical states with Democracy in it’s name, but not in its government.

The Congress is not supposed to be all-powerful no matter what the cause is, because sooner or later somebody takes the cause too far and starts doing people and their freedom harm. It is a shame that many Republicans do not see the danger in crossing these lines, because it is their values of independence, local sovereignty that will be harmed first by how this congress has pushed the envelope.

I know that this might not be what you want to hear, AP, since you’re more interested in bashing republicans than disucssing the realities of the situation, but nearly half of the democrats in office voted YEA for the law as well.

It seems to me to be more than a ‘Republican’ grab against state rights but more like a bunch of POLITICIANS who are scared of losing their jobs who pulled the switch on this one.

It’s how most federal power grabs have occured in the past, most notably during FDR’s tenure.

I heard one ticked off Dem say that this was being done ‘in secret and in the dark’ and that the Dems weren’t invited to join in.
Whe asked if she was going to show up in D.C. she gave a matter of fact - ‘NO.’

It was also pointed out on ‘Hardball’, by Chris Matthews himself, that the only Dems who were speaking out were the ones in ‘safe’ districts that had no worries about being re-elected.

For the record - I thought the Congress should not have taken this on.

As a red, I can’t/won’t defend this policy. It is stupid for the Feds to reach into this poor woman’s “life”.

Unfortunately, I think it is expedient politics to get the Dems on the wrong side of the life issue. I don’t agree with that either.

The related tragedy is the only way we can let her die is to starve her body to death. We - society - need to come up with a consensus about what it means to be alive.

I think Rhinehold has it right.

Look at how the votes came out on both sides of the isle.

As far as the “waste of time for congress” issue goes;..

I see it more as a bunch of chair-warmers brought back to work in the middle of the night to deal with an issue that they should have been working on in their regular 9-5 day(cough..laugh..gag).

I will agree that politics are involved in this, If you will agree that case law un-challenged can set presedent in future cases?

AP wasn’t ‘bashing’ on Republicans… he was talking about the way that they like to bring judicail cases into the legislative branch of the government. Yes, some democrats supported this bill, but when it comes to many other ‘privacy issues’, like abortion, like marraige, like (please insert any part of the patriot act here), that is all republicans, and it is getting a little scary Rhinehold.

Stephen:

No, we don’t have a real constitutional crisis until we see the courts fail to strike down this unconstitutional invasion of the separation of powers

My understanding is that there is no constitutional crisis at all. The legislative branch has the responsibility of determining jurisdiction of the courts. By granting federal jurisdiction, Congress was doing exactly what the constitution says it can do.

The courts will make the right choice.

I would encourage the left not to push the contitutionality issue too far, as the constitution does not require a super majority to confirm a justice. Fillibuster is only a matter of Senate rules. If liberals want to go constitutional all the way, by by Roe v Wade.

Craig

Which I find very funny since the federal judge who is hearing this case was appointed by Clinton.

It is the judges that has blocked any attempt at curbing the number of abortions done each year in this county.

It is the judges that are telling us that baning gay marriage is wrong.

It is the judges that tell use that we have to pay for every illegal that comes across the boarder.

Now its the REP that are stepping on states rights.

You don’t get it. Thats why you are losing the seat and unless you wake up you will lose all branches of goverment.

G.W.Bush said “if there is error to be made, let be in favor of life”. I peronally do not know and am not qualified to know what is best for Ms. Schaivo, the same goes for all of you. However, remember that a state court essentially ruled to termiate her life. For one to ask for another court to reconsider would seem only fair for her and her family. It turns out that the courts should have stayed out of this to begin with.

I think the Congress did fine. It narrowly identified a bill to allow the family to have a federal appeal. And since this is about the “right to life” which is a fundamental of our society it seems only appropriate. I am also pleased as a Republican that the judge was appointed by Clinton. Checks and balances is what our system is about. It seems to be working fine.

Craig

Anyone ready to defend the indefensible? According to a GOP memo, the Repugs cooked this up to embarrass Sen. Bill Nelson. Hopefully it won’t work since they have been caught. (But I wouldn’t bet on it.)

This legal essay explains far more articulately than I can why this is a lousy idea, regardless of the motive (which stinks). To quote

Only the most extraordinary levels of congressional hubris could allow a group of elected citizens to substitute their personal medical, legal, and ethical judgments for those of the doctors, judges, and guardians who have been intimately involved with this heartbreakingly sad case for years.

For once, I agree with Jack.

This seems to be nothing more than an attempt to paint one side as warm and loving defenders of life and others as mean-spirited and cruel defenders of death (if you will).

It’s simply wrong. This case has dragged out for years, through a number of judges and doctors and I don’t think that most of the people involved have any real interest what’s right for Terry.
I’m not a physician (and Sen. Frist, it must be remembered is a cardiac surgeon, upon reviewing a video of Terry, disagreed with her doctor’s diagnosis of the damage - which is sort of like an electrical engineer trying to tell what’s wrong with your computer by looking at a video of the screen), but from what I’ve read, it seems pretty clear that “Terry” is gone and it’s only her body responding to stimuli like a flower following the track of the sun.

This should have been left up to the family and the doctors. And despite what Terry Schiavo’s parents may wish, they are not their daughters guardians. Her husband is and any decision regarding her care should be left to him.

The upshot of all of this is for people to leave very specific instructions in living wills.

Looks like Bush and GOP are making yet more moves toward a politburo type government. Centralized federal government run by one party whose first and foremost concern is holding and increasing power. Yep, sure seems that way. And they were worried about the lefties - now that is irony for you.

American Pundit began this discussion by saying this is a “nail in the coffin for state’s rights”. I couldn’t disagree more. State’s have said all kinds of things over our history. During the civil rights movement states said they had the right to deny Blacks access to the same schools as whites. The federal goverment thought differently and reversed their decision. Is this an example of a nail in the coffin of state’s rights. Or because American Pundit agrees with this decision this is ok. Just because a decision comes down that goes against ones personal beliefs doesn’t mean the process that brought that decision about is wrong.

Dawn - you’re right, the article I cited does not mention the financial aspects - only that it was against the mother’s wishes. Here’s one that does, in relation to another case:

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

And also blog that discusses the issue:

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/03/schiavo_hudson_and_nikolouzos.php

I’m not sure this law is black-and-white…it appears to say that a hospital can refuse to give life-support if *they* think it’s inappropriate, even if you disagree. Next of kin is then allowed 10 days to move the patient to another site - which they may not be able to do if they can’t pay.

Scott, you are talking about government 40 years ago. AP is talking about government today, almost completely controlled by Republicans who are so fond of saying one thing and doing another. Like, we stand for smaller government while growing it, we stand for fiscal discipline, while raising the deficit roof year after year, like we stand for states rights while passing unfunded mandates to the states, mandatory sentencing, and now usurping states rights regarding state’s laws over custodial responsibility. What’s next, Republicans dictating who can adopt and who can’t by their party affiliation? Funny…

David - I agree with most of what you said. As a Republican I wish my party would shrink the government, balance the budget, shrink the deficit, and give more rights to the states. However my point of my first post is that Democrats are now standing up for state’s rights because Congress did something they don’t agree with. But when it comes to something like abortion will Democrats say this is a state’s rights issue? My guess is they would say the Federal Goverment was right to step in for that issue because they agree with the decision.

David:

Looks like Bush and GOP are making yet more moves toward a politburo type government. Centralized federal government run by one party whose first and foremost concern is holding and increasing power. Yep, sure seems that way. And they were worried about the lefties - now that is irony for you.

And they did it in a bipartison and constitutional way!!

Democrats voted for this, and a Clinton appointee is going to review the case.

Just like under the Soviet system.

Craig

Scott, your absolutely right, except, that the Democrats don’t run for office on states rights, nor do they promise protection of states rights in their platform.

Oh, Craig, please, a few democrats vote and you call it bipartisan? The only way Democrats can get anything at all today is to barter their yes votes on some Republican bills in return for at least a committee hearing on one of their proposals.

This is not a two party government by any means, anymore. It is a standing joke that Bush uses the word bipartisan when a handful of Democrats are strongarmed or blackmailed into assent. I will acknowledge there are a some democrats who lean right on some issues, and to that extent, there is some justification for use of the word bipartisan.

But like I’ve said before, 2006 elections aren’t far off and even Democrats have Christian Right constituents just like some Republicans are now balking on Bush proposals for the same reason.

Any democrat who votes with a republican was “strongarmed” or “blackmailed”. Is there a shred of evidence to support this?

Uncle Zell sure didn’t look like his arm was twisted. No wait, let me guess, he is the exception.

Does anyone consider the fact that she is only brain damaged and not brain dead? And even if she wanted to die, or it was the humane thing to do, isnt it still wrong to starve her to death?

If our government plans to go so far as to say we cannot remove someone from life support - they need to be prepared to pay the bills - or at least make sure our insurance companies cannot stop payment once the bills reach a certain amount.

Nobody should EVER have their life ended because of unpaid hospital bills.
None of us should lose everything we have because a loved one became so ill.

William,
Was that a public hospital the baby was in? Don’t we still have hospitals that cannot refuse medical care in this country?

Craig-

“Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. … The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community.” James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

Our constitution guarantees several things: No bills of attainder, making judgments apart from the court system; No ex post facto laws, no laws that privilege certain groups where others aren’t, and no deprival of one’s civil rights without due process.

All this, for a case that has been decided time and again in the Husband’s favor. The danger here is of the will of a congress that is taking sides overriding judges, juries and laws to overwhelm courts that are disagreeing with them. They have the power to change the laws to make sure incidents like this are decided differently in the future, so long as they write things constitutionally.

But now, they’re trying to intervene after the fact, in a manner that conflicts with Seperations of powers, for just one person.

I mean, tell me, given what this congress did with the last judgement, what incentive does this judge, no matter who appointed him, to judge this case impartially? This is the whims, the politics and the moods of the moment screwing up the rule of law and the law’s stability. This is about our government’s power over the average person.

If you like authoritarian government which imposes its values on people, go ahead and support this. Then wait for the precedent this sets to come around and bite you in the ass. Then complain to me, and I’ll tell you then what I tell you now.

Go ahead, and strike down filibusters. Then see what happens when you lose the majority. Go ahead and strike down Roe v. Wade, and say hello to compulsory sterilization. If you don’t ensure freedoms, privacy, constitutional law, and the separation of powers, you will see your own freedoms and your own values trampled upon.

If you’re going to bring in the constitution, then why not bring up the fact that it promises the right to life?

Tell me, why do the parents want to keep her alive? Why is it that only the lawyers and the husband want her dead.

No one has answered my question of whether or not it is humane to starve someone to death. If you’re going to kill her, wouldnt it be better to use conventional medical methods?

I’ll answer you Nostradamus.

I think it is inhumane. I could probably not do that to a loved one of mine. They are supposed to relieve any pain she may have with drugs I guess - makes it more humane? Not in my opinion.
It has been said that people get pretty stiff sentences in Florida if they starve an animal.

Is it not against the law to use medical methods to end someone’s life? - unless they are on death row - of course.

Stephen:

But now, they’re trying to intervene after the fact, in a manner that conflicts with Seperations of powers, for just one person.

I completely disagree with you. How can giving power to the courts violate separation of powers? If Congress ordered an outcome I would agree with you. They ordered a process.

So handing power to a Clinton appointed judge to decide is violating separation of powers? HOW??

Craig

Nostradamus, don’t read the Constitution much do you? The Constitution and courts have said the government may not deprive citizens of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness without due process.

If what you said were true, there would be no death penalty now would there? There would be no license to kill by policemen, would there?

No one has answered my question of whether or not it is humane to starve someone to death.

If you have a frog whose brain is pithed, is it humane or inhumane to dissect it while its heart is beating and lungs taking air? The point is, Terri’s brain is not aware of starving, breathing or not breathing. Terri, according to the experts who examined her, have indicated she has reflexes but no congnition of what state she is in.

Is it humane to electrocute an individual to death when they must burn aware of it for upwards of 2 to 3 minutes. Or is it humane to sedate them so they are not aware they are being electrocuted? Poor unfortunate Terri, her Dr.’s say, will not be aware she is starving or dehydrating. She might as well be completely anesthetized, since, she is not aware of what is happening to her body anyway.

Stephen:

I mean, tell me, given what this congress did with the last judgement, what incentive does this judge, no matter who appointed him, to judge this case impartially?

You are right, he was appointed by Clinton.

Craig

So far I have yet to see a “due process” that would enable the doctors to kill Terry.

If shes not aware of anything then what is it that causes her to cry? If its a reflex then I would like to know to what is she reacting to, I’d understand dust and dirt, but then again I didnt notice alot of it floating around when I last visited the hospice.

Regarding death row inmates. You need to take into acount the fact that those individuals are convicted criminals, and Terry was just a house wife.

Just because someone is an expert, does it mean that they are always right? To me an expert is simply someone with a piece of paper and ink on it. What gives them the right to play god?

If I starve my son, but give him valum every day, would that be inhumane?

You can reverse that and ask if it is humane to let someone go on like that?

Nostradamus said: “So far I have yet to see a “due process” that would enable the doctors to kill Terry.”

What do you think the years of court battles have been about. That is due process. And the issue is not killing, the issue is allowing Terri’s body to die after the fact of her brain already having done so.

I have shot a few animals several times in the brain to relieve them of their suffering. A fawn with a broken back and partially eaten leg, a fox with brain worms, and a dog hit by a car. It was painful and emotional for me to do something like that since I respect life, immensely. I considered killing them humane, the more so because it was not easy to do and the act of killing pained me.

It should be painful for an individual or society to allow a person to die. But, it is also humane to do so, if prolonged suffering is involved. It is also humane to do so, if an individual has chosen to NOT be kept alive after their brain has died. That displays pure disrespect for the choices and freedom of the individual to make their own choices.

“Schiavo” means “slave” in Italian.

FYI.

oh, and its pronounced “Sk-ee-a-vo”

Craig, the separation of powers referred to is the Constitution indicating that all powers not enumerated in the Constitution shall fall into the domain of the states.

Congress removing the power of a state’s Congress and Courts to decide on this issue is a violation of separation of powers since the Constitution does ennumerate custodial decision making as a power of the federal government.

I think its sad that people affiliated with one party or another feel it necessary to support their party’s legislation without question. It seems to me that many people simply agree with the Republican or the Democrat that they associate with.

Why can’t we just make make up our own minds and not rely on politicians to tell us whats right or wrong?

Think freely, people. This issue transcends partisan politics.

It seems to me that two central issues we must ALL be concerned about are
1) legally the next of kin that has right or Power of Attorney for medical decisions is the SPOUSE (husband or wife) and THEN if none the parents. This whole case can and in more cases than we care to admit muddy that sucession. If a parent doesn’t agree with the spouse well then let’s take it to court. Let’s hope your in-law likes you enough to trust that you are doing what you see best.
2)It seems to me that you can’t get any 2 MD’s to agree on much of anything. (I know of many Doctors that think you can’t give narcotics in adequate amounts to terminal cancer patients because they will become addicted then let those same patients die in agony. While others believe that pain must be controlled at any cost.) And believe me after almost 27 years as a nurse in 4 states, I can attest to that. So based on that you should always put in feeding tubes or whatever method is necessary to keep the body functioning. I guarantee you that you can always find a Doctor to think as long as you can keep the body functioning you are required to. I have nursed more vegatative folks than I care to remember bodies covered with bed sores and when you look in the eyes you know that the essence of that human has long gone. So please think of this without modern medicine, Terri would have long gone to her creator. Do we really have the right to play GOD because that’s what we are playing!

Why is it the only time the liberials worry about the vaule of human life is when a murderer is about to be executed?

Craig, the separation of powers referred to is the Constitution indicating that all powers not enumerated in the Constitution shall fall into the domain of the states.

Congress removing the power of a state’s Congress and Courts to decide on this issue is a violation of separation of powers since the Constitution does ennumerate custodial decision making as a power of the federal government.

Separation of powers One of the most important of the basic principles that guided the framers of the US Constitution in their design for America’s future governance was the idea that the root cause and essence of tyrranical government is the concentration of control over all the powers and functions of government in the hands of the same individual or narrow political faction. The corollary the Framers drew from this was the separation of powers principle: that free popular government can best be sustained by dividing the various powers and functions of government among separate and relatively independent governmental institutions whose officials would be selected at different intervals and through different procedures by somewhat different constituencies so as to make it unlikely that the same small faction could gain control of them all at the same time. Thus, in the American federal republic the Framers designed, “the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments [the Federal government and the governments of the several states], and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments [the executive, the legislative, and the judicial].” [Madison, The Federalist #51]

Craig

The nail in the coffin of states rights and limited federal government came 60 years ago when the Supreme Court declared that a farmer growing food on his farm, to be used only on his farm, could be regulated under the commerce clause. I have yet to meet a democrat who opposes that decision, or that line of Supreme Court precedents. Until this side of the column disclaims the general police power that is now the modern commerce clause according to Democrats, you have no right to utter the phrase “nail in the coffin of state’s rights.”

While you are right on this particular point, your side’s hypocrisy on this issue far outweighs any valid observation you may have on one particular issue (also, I will like to see what this side of the column has to say when all five liberal supreme court justices uphold the federal government taking away a California lady’s medicine pot under the COMMERCE CLAUSE in about 2 months).

Our limited nation government died long ago, under the Democrats’ watch and praise. Those of us who were sad to see it go will not let you pretend you care about states’ rights after all that!

If she’s only an empty shell then why do you care if she lives or dies?

So far all that I am hearing is:
a) She is a lifeless souless shell.
b)We should end her missery.

Choose one, either she can feel and so we should end her pain. Or since she cant feel anything, let her parents live in a dream and keep her alive.

In the House, 47 (out of 202) Democrats joined 156 Republicans (out of 232) to vote for the bill - 147 Representatives of both parties abstained. The Senate passed it anonymously “by voice vote in a nearly empty chamber.”

And no matter who appointed the federal judge that hears the case, that person is still a political appointee.

James Fitzgerald is asking us to transcend party politics when thinking about this issue. My reply is to say we were, until Congressional Republicans decided to circumvent state judiciary procedures - to “undermine 200 years of jurisprudence” - and make a cynical political maneuver out of that family’s personal tragedy.

“If you don’t want a decision to be made politically, why in the world do you ask 535 politicians to make it? Does anyone think that this decision will be made without consideration of electoral support or party or ideology? Of course not,” said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.

Sadly, many Republican’s in Congress are now trying to vilify Mr. Schiavo. Shame on them. That family needs to reconcile and heal, not be pitted against one another for some the Republican Party’s political gain.

I meant all FOUR liberal supreme court justices- i guess with O’Connor voting liberal so much recently, i got a little confused. sorry.

…let her parents live in a dream and keep her alive.

Who’s paying the medical bills? Half of Americans who file bankruptcy do so because of medical bills - though they won’t be able to file anymore since Republicans in Congress have screwed the average joe with their new bankruptcy laws.

yeah, how dare people be expected to honor their voluntarily assumed debts!

The husband was awarded 22 Million dollers in order to pay for medical bills. I think they have enough.

Pardon me, 2 million dollars, the 22M was a typo.

Misha, the controversy over the commerce clause goes back to 1824. Both conservative and liberal justices have used broad interpretations, and in 1995 the Supreme Court set clear limits for future interpretations.

yeah, how dare people be expected to honor their voluntarily assumed debts!

Misha, I’m not sure how you can define a debilitating medical emergency as a “voluntarily assumed” debt. Do you even read the posts before you reply?

Nostradamus, I apologize. I just wanted to take a quick pot-shot at the GOP’s crappy bankruptcy law. I don’t want to derail the thread. BTW, I think it was a $1 million settlement. Another typo?

AP-

1. As far as I know, not a single liberal justices has signed on to any of the limits the supreme court put on federalism in 1995. Moreover, in all of my con law classes and time in law school, I have no found one person who identifies themselves as a Democrat who agrees with the Lopez-Morrison line of cases. Basically, Democrats believe that the commerce clause is a blank check for Congress, as far as I can tell.

2. Sorry for the other comment, it was aimed GENERALLY at the bankruptcy bill, which was good legislation. Bankruptcy should be a very harsh proceeding which takes place in only the most dire circumstances. Currently, Bankruptcy is increasing every year, especially among the RICH (because it is the right move financially because its such a good deal compared to actually paying off debts). Bankruptcy needs to be made less enticing, and thats what this bill did.

~1 million in court malpractice suits, ~$600,000 in other court reimbursement and then you add in the donations that the family threw in through the various websites. One man offered the husband an additional 1 million if he would keep her alive, Mr. Shiavo declined. He also continues to file for “guardianship of a disabled” pay checks each month.

If he loves her then why is he married to another woman and had children with her?

Misha, I GENERALLY agree with you about bankruptcy. It seems to me that bankruptcy courts GENERALLY do a good job deciding who can file and who can’t on a case by case basis. The biggest problems with this bill is that it penalizes legitimate filers along with the abusers, and it doesn’t crack down on the RICH who are the biggest abusers of the current and previous law. It doesn’t address all the shelters in which the RICH hide their million$ before filing for bankruptcy. The law also doesn’t address corporate abuses of bankruptcy - and it was passed against the recommendations of the SEC.

It’s purely and simply a pro-business law for an industry that made a whopping 163% profit last year despite their claims that bankruptcy abuse is hurting their bottom line.

I also GENERALLY agree with you about the commerce clause, too. So here’s one Democrat who’s telling you he agrees with the 1995 decision.

While you are right on this particular point…

Of course I am. ;)

Nostradamus, shame on you.

Nostradamus-
The question is whether there is a Terry to kill, or a body that has been artificially preserved on life support If it were as simple as killing an obviously thinking human being, we wouldn’t have this controversy.

The question is, is Terry Schiavo aware of her starvation? If she isn’t, there is no Terry to starve, so nobody is going to feel that body’s starvation and dehydration, anymore than a braindead patients going to feel the suffocation or dizziness of being taken off of a ventilator.

Your question about experts is self defeating, because the side you sympathize with is using medical experts too. The thing I think you should take into account here is that the people you’re siding with have not been able to prove that they have a conscious human being here, and there are a number of ways to prove that.

Many reflexes continue even without higher brain functions. Blinking is one of them. It’s purpose isn’t merely dust or dirt, but also keeping the corneas bathed in tears, whose production is a reflex

Ron Brown-
I will take your comment to be a mark of your inexperience with dealing with liberals, and not evidence of some innate Republican prejudice.

Craig-
It doesn’t matter one iota who appointed the judge. The constitution does not permit congress to change the facts of a case (I think jurisdiction would be one) to get the outcome it wants, nor does it permit laws to be custom fit to one individual at congress’s vote.

This was a case forced from the State Courts by an act of congress into a higher federal court that didn’t ask for it. This is the Legislature redefining jurisdiction after the fact, and for one case and no other. That’s not constitutional.

Nostradamus said: “Choose one, either she can feel and so we should end her pain. Or since she cant feel anything, let her parents live in a dream and keep her alive.”

Whose WE? We ain’t killing anyone. Her husband won the confidence of the courts to respect his wifes wish that she be allowed to die under circumstances like this. Ain’t no killing going on here. Preserving a brain dead woman’s body is all that is going on.

“Why is it the only time the liberials worry about the value of human life is when a murderer is about to be executed?
Posted by: Ron Brown at March 21, 2005 11:52 PM “

Another question is why doesn’t the conservative care about life when it is the death penality given the amount of folks being exonerated by DNA we surely have killed a few innocent men on death row

The links I posted earlier that didn’t work-

Cogent essay:

http://www.slate.com/id/2115124/

Story on smoking-gun memo:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002213728_memo20.html

Just because someone is an expert, does it mean that they are always right? To me an expert is simply someone with a piece of paper and ink on it. What gives them the right to play god?

Someone, or some people, have to “play God” in this case, because the woman can’t articulate her own wishes (and probably has none to articulate). According to the law, it’s her husband and her doctors. The GOP is trying to get a judge to ignore the law, without trying to clarify what is wrong with the law. Do they believe that everyone should be kept alive as long as technologically possible? Do they think a person’s parents should always get the final call, rather than the person’s spouse (whom they CHOSE to marry)? If so, they should try to pass a law saying so.

I don’t pretend to know what’s best for Terri Schiavo, but I know this is a lousy way to make public policy!

A telling statement from Tom Delay

“One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America,” Mr. DeLay told a conference organized by the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group. A recording of the event was provided by the advocacy organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

“This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others,” Mr. DeLay said.

Now if they can just keep her alive until Nov. 2006…

Glad to hear it AP! This is one time where I am very happy to be proven wrong. Now i guess i cant say I have never talked to a Democrat who supports judicially enforced federalism limits. :).

The only problem I have with the bankruptcy bill is that I will now continue to receive unsolicited junk mail from the credit card companies. If those guys are getting bad debtors then they are just reaping what they sow.

As I said in an earlier blog, it is funny to see Democrats using separation arguments. They’ve done everything they can over the past 100 years to ignore the 10th based upon “the principle of the matter.”

The federal judge won’t order the reinsertion of the feeding tube. That wasn’t unexpected, as I mentioned in the original article.

The whole thing is just cynical political grandstanding by Congressional Republicans. Shame.

George, I wasn’t around 100 years ago. I seem to remember the GOP being the party of fiscal responsibility. Now look at ‘em. Things change.

Misha, to quote Clint Eastwood in my favorite movie, just because we agree on this one issue “doesn’t mean we’re gonna take warm showers to the wee hours of the morning, you hear me?” While I think the Libertarian viewpoint needs to be part of the national debate, real Libertarians are a little too cold blooded for me. ;)

Now i guess i cant say I have never talked to a Democrat who supports judicially enforced federalism limits. :).
misha -
Now you an say you’ve talked to two of them…I guess you don’t actually talk to a lot of Democrats…you probably talk at them…
And the “bankruptcy bill” talk really is breaking this thread…

AP-

Oh but I agree with you on the GOP and their faux limited government party. That’s why I’m not a Republican either. I get to gripe at both sides!

How about Dick Riley for 08? Maybe Sam Nunn? Problem is that your side has no one left in their shadows, and it’s too late for Hil to fake it.

Brico- you do not know me, you should assume that about me. As for federalism, I have been in many law school classe with Democrats and literally not ONE TIME has someone said anything in support of either Lopez or Morrison. I think you would be amazed the homogeniety of views on this subject among Democrats in law school (i guess my mistake was extrapolating to Democrats in general from that small sample….).

I keep hearing people say ‘Well, she can’t feel anything anyways’.

Are you SURE?

I don’t know, but I’m not sadistic enough to assume that is true. *IF* the decision is made to end her life, for pete’s sake END IT PAINLESSLY. She may or may not know. Assuming she can’t feel and letting her starve to death serves no purpose at all and is disgusting.

AP, Libertarians are cold blooded? WTF makes you say that? Just be cause we don’t think the federal government should be taking care of people, but we would rather see family, friends, communities and local governments take on that responsibility instead?

Please, I’m a libertarian and I’m the only one on here wanting to make sure we don’t let someone starve and dehydrate to death. The cold blooded ones appear to me to be Democrats atm.

Which is typical. Speak of compassion but don’t actually do anything about it.

Stephen Daughtery
MY remark wasn’t from “innate Republican predijudice” and it does come from experiance with liberials.
I live in a college town am up to my eye balls with liberials.

I cant side with the experts since none have been allowed to examine her for the past three years.

Do you realy want to risk starving someone to death who has the slightest chance of still being aware of whats happening?

They still have yet to prove she is brain dead.

By “we” I had ment people as a whole.

Regarding mariage, the GOP just wants to keep it to what it is, a covenant between a man, a woman, and God.

Nostradamus,

I might agree with them on the marriage thing if it was all that Marriage was, just a religous cerimonial joining of a man and a woman.

But it’s not. It has dozens of legal ramifications applied to it and therefore infringes upon the 14th amendment to our consititution. I am working on an article that I should be posting very soon (watch the middle column!) that will address this specific issue.

I dont see a problem with civil unions granting the same legal rights as married couples. But that conversation will only detract from the thread.

I cant side with the experts since none have been allowed to examine her for the past three years.

Do you realy want to risk starving someone to death who has the slightest chance of still being aware of whats happening?

Yesterday on CNN, Tom DeLay asserted that Terri can ‘talk’. I saw Bill Frist on the floor of the Senate claim, there are real chances she can regain her normal faculties. Others claim, she’s not in a Permanent Vegetative State.

These are examples of the outrageous deceptions - many that go unchallenged in the broadcast media - being used by the Republicans and the Right. Unhelpful polling showing an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed to such a personal intrusion by Congressional Republicans, are buried by Fox News. And apparently, the ‘culture of life’ doesn’t sell well when accompanied by a current photo of Schavio, either.

misha -
you do not know me, you should assume that about me
Get a sense of humor…I was being a sarcastic wise-ass…

I was going to write more, but all of you just make me tired.

Tom Delay in an editorial in USA Today dated 3/22/05 stated that Schavio had, had no CAT scans preformed. This is not the case court records say different. I would think that
Some one with Tom Delays resources behind him could at least get the facts right this isn’t information that is protected by the CIA. Why lie about it. At the very least he should lie about thing that the general public does not have access too. This man is desperate to get the public off his back but maybe it would be best for us if he went back to selling bug killer.

What the hell is this blog even about?

At this point zeek, I don’t think anyone remembers…

AP,

Although I agree with the government intervention, I do believe that you are right that states’ rights have suffered because of it. We see a reversal in the ideology of the two major political parties in this country on this issue. The Republicans are now for an activist federal govt. and the Democrats are now for states’ rights. It is amazing how interesting politics in the United States can be.

Nathan, I agree about it being interesting. Otherwise, I wouldn’t waste my time with it. But you gotta remember, Democrats have always been about state’s rights - though sometimes for really really bad reasons.