June 15, 2005
Schiavo Autopsy
The Terri Schiavo autopsy has been released. Her brain “weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of a human brain. … This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons.” No evidence was found of the abuse of which Michael Schiavo was accused.
The intense arguments and political shenanigans of a couple months ago were unnecessary. The right course of action was taken.
Posted by LawnBoy at June 15, 2005 12:04 PMI can’t believe you brought this up just when we had all forgotten about it…
Posted by: Zeek at June 15, 2005 12:13 PMWhen it’s on the front page of cnn.com in bold letters, it’ll show up here in one form or another…
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 15, 2005 12:17 PMThe intense arguments and political shenanigans of a couple months ago were unnecessary.
Not true. One cannot criticize the rightness of a decision based on information that was not available at the time it was made.
Might I also point out that most people in this column were annoyed that the Schiavo case was getting so much publicity. Now you’re only adding to it.
Posted by: Gandhi at June 15, 2005 12:19 PMGandhi:
Not true. One cannot criticize the rightness of a decision based on information that was not available at the time it was made.The medical evidence at the time was unequivicable that she was brain dead. Only those with no real knowledge thought otherwise.
Might I also point out that most people in this column were annoyed that the Schiavo case was getting so much publicity. Now you’re only adding to it.The complaint wasn’t the publicity the trial got, it was how purely political in purpose the Republicans were. They obviously couldn’t have cared less about the person or her family members. Posted by: Dave at June 15, 2005 12:31 PM
Lawnboy, you make a good point. The nonsense that surrounded the Schiavo case a few weeks ago is/was the real issue. Republicans using anything pretense to shore up their conservative Christian base. The recent autopsy is just a puncuation mark.
Posted by: Robert Orlando at June 15, 2005 12:31 PMIMO this is not an issue that merits nor will foster any debate issues that have not already been discussed in every possible forum.
Posted by: steve smith at June 15, 2005 12:33 PMDidn’t the report also say that she was blind? So what does that say about those video tapes of her tracking a balloon? What does it say about the people who made that tape?
Somehow, I don’t think that all those who demonized her husband will be rushing to apologize. This is so sad.
Posted by: Nikita at June 15, 2005 12:35 PMOK - so just for my info: So, is there a single anti-Bush liberal ‘paranoia’ that’s hasn’t been proved to be true?
I think the facts had a Liberal bias.
Posted by: tony at June 15, 2005 12:35 PMRobert,
Dave made the point you liked, not me. (don’t want to steal credit)
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 15, 2005 12:36 PMThanks Lawnboy, but he may have been refering to your political shenanigans comment.
In any case, is that your travelouge? If so, how did a SEAS nerd get such a cutie to marry him? And, is it true what they say about the size of the pocket protector? (just kidding, just in case)
Dave,
Yes, it is my website.
You’ve made my wife very happy. She thinks you’re very much a gentlemen for your comment. Actually, she’s an Engineer, too.
Do you know SEAS? Are you from Wash U?
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 15, 2005 01:13 PMThe ‘right’ course of action was taken legally (no one ever denied this), but the right course of action was not taken in regards to allowing the parents of Schiavo to keep their daughter alive which was really why this story did recieve so much attention. To end a life against the wishes of the parents is a bit disturbing, even if she couldn’t be saved. I have a daughter and I just can’t imagine being prevented from taking care of her by a husband and a court when no one else is willing to do it. While legally the course of action was a correct one, there are still fundamental questions that need to be addressed.
Posted by: OttO at June 15, 2005 01:27 PM(follow-up): Regardless, I wonder how this can be viewed as something to celebrate. A woman is shown to have been brain-dead, parents have lost their daughter and a great controversy has occurred and I seem to picture folks like you high-fiving each other over what can hardly be seen as good news.
Why am I not surprised to find people celebrating ‘political’ victories of this nature on a Democrat/Liberal board? It’s equivolent to an ‘I told you so - nan-nanny-boo-boo’ everytime an American soldier dies in Iraq…
I’m happy for you that this tragedy has given you a boost in your political confidence, but I can’t be as happy as you are - I didn’t know her or her family the way you did.
Posted by: OttO at June 15, 2005 01:33 PMI have a daughter and I just can’t imagine being prevented from taking care of her by a husband and a court when no one else is willing to do it.
I have a wife, and I just can’t imagine being prevented from fulfilling her end-of-life wishes by her parents and grandstanding politicians from Washington.
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 15, 2005 01:39 PMOttO,
It’s not celebrating her death. Nice spin attempt, though. I’m sad that you have such a low impression of others that you would see us high-fiving each other over this.
It’s relief that the right course was taken, and it’s hopefully a point that people will take in the future about interference from national politicians. It’s also proof that Mr. Frist is a politician more than a doctor when he makes split-second “diagnoses” based on two-minutes of video on an issue outside his specialty.
I didn’t know her or her family the way you did.None of us ever claimed to know her family better than you did. It’s the people who tried to override the legal and family decisions for religious and politican gains that made such claims. Posted by: LawnBoy at June 15, 2005 01:49 PM
Can we please show a little respect for Terri and her family and just let the subject drop?
This really needs to end.
Posted by: TheTraveler at June 15, 2005 01:49 PMmmmm…fetus
jimmie here is one for you http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/chamber/61598
Posted by: Goose3five at June 15, 2005 02:14 PMI heard both Terri and her husband were doing crack cocaine and that was the actual found cause of the innitial stroke. The dieting alibi was nonsense, it was drug connected. Western Florida, late eighties, makes sense huh?
Okay I just made that up to keep this thread interesting (yawn).
Posted by: Lateralist at June 15, 2005 02:45 PMJimmie,
World Net Daily makes the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka look kind and rational. I’d have to go with the World Weekly News.
Try:http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/chamber/61597
It was my idea first, can I sue even if I thought of rubberbands instead? Thanks Goose!
Lawnboy, I went to U Penn, similar acronym for the Engineering school though…
Posted by: Dave at June 15, 2005 02:48 PMI am just glad this ones over and done with. I don’t think I could stomach any more of the activist’s activities from either side. I wouldn’t have minded so much, but towards the end when everybody on all sides of the case had an opinion, that she was saying:
IMO IMO IMO IMO
Didn’t it look as if Terry Schaivo was mouthing the words,:
“LEAVE ME ALONE, HAVEN’T I SUUFERED ENOUGH?”
Why anyone would try to politicize this issue is beyond me.
It is clearly a moral issue (not a new one, just the latest one) that can be argued forever.
Give it up and move on.
Posted by: steve smith at June 15, 2005 03:35 PMSteve,
“It is clearly a moral issue (not a new one, just the latest one) that can be argued forever.”
Have you not been paying attention? “Moral” issues won big for the republicans in ‘04. If the democrats had half as good a noise machine as the reps, they could use this very effectively to undermine Frist and Delay.
Was I the only one who felt sick watching Frist make that infamous videotape diagnosis?
Posted by: Nikita at June 15, 2005 03:50 PMWayne,
IMO IMO IMO IMO Didn’t it look as if Terry Schaivo was mouthing the words,:
“LEAVE ME ALONE, HAVEN’T I SUUFERED ENOUGH?”
Lol, life is what you make it I guess…
Posted by: Zeek at June 15, 2005 03:55 PMNikita,
Nice try but I will not be drawn in to your political slant on a family’s personal tragedy.
While you were sickened by a videotape, you are still alive.
You can post a last word on how horrible the Republicans and right wingers are if it makes you feel better because I will not discuss the Schaivo issue any further.
Posted by: steve smith at June 15, 2005 04:01 PM“While you were sickened by a videotape, you are still alive.”
Whaaaa? Huh? Honey, please don’t twist my words. Maybe I should have made this more clear but I wasn’t sickened by the videotape of Terri. That just made me sad. What made me sick to my stomach was watching the good doctor Frist make his diagnosis and the circus that followed. I mean, the AIDS from sweat thing was almost laughable but this?
It’s a good thing that you consider a family’s personal tragedy as off limits. I think that the polling data showed that most americans did too. I only wish that in this particular case, Frist and Delay had kept their hands off.
You people kill me!!!!(literally, I guess I better cross my T’s and dot my I’s)!! Now back to the REAL point!
I don’t believe most people were concerned w/ wether or not she lived or died.
Had those two’s marriage been a little more conventional I think most would have agreed w/ her husband.
He was the problem in my eyes. (First of all I’ve discussed this issue w/ newlyweds, 5yrs. married or below, and 100% of them claimed that they never discussed their wishes for this type of situation). Young healthy people generally don’t dwell on death.
He had already moved on w/ a whole other life(and kids to boot), my God you monster give this one thing back to her family. To throw salt in the wound again he won’t even let them bury her in their home state w/ them.(what kind of a freak is he w/ that dosn’t think it’s a lil’ odd to be holding on like that w/ this whole other family at home…it just sounds fishy wanting all that control after all that time, is he trying to hide something?)!
Now….any other circumstances and I think people would have said, “who cares”!
Posted by: Traci at June 15, 2005 04:42 PMWe need to keep this alive.
This is prove positive of what Republicans will go through to serve their Evangelical Nut Base.
What happened to Shiavo could happen to you.
Republicans have no respect for people and their Rights.
Par for the course…
Posted by: Aldous at June 15, 2005 04:47 PMNikita,
My sentence was poorly constructed. I didn’t mean that you were sickened by the videotape of Teri. Sorry for the confusion. I apologize.
Aldous, Once again showing your debating skills. I would even call you a master-debater.
What did or did not happen to Schaivo will not happen to anybody who prepares for that day, which I have. A living will with copies given to various family members, attorney, all doctors who treat me, hospital, clergyman,etc. DNR self proclaimed and documented takes the decision making controversey out of everyone else’s hands.
I took these steps because I am a Republican and have no respect for people and their rights and to serve my Evangelical Nut peers.
As for par for the course, I used to be a 4 handicap golfer when I was younger and healthy. Now I have a terminal lung disease and am unable to play.
Posted by: Steve smith at June 15, 2005 05:02 PMFirst of all I’ve discussed this issue w/ newlyweds, 5yrs. married or below, and 100% of them claimed that they never discussed their wishes for this type of situation
Actually, my wife and I had wills and living wills drawn up a couple years ago, when we’d been married less than two years.
To throw salt in the wound again he won’t even let them bury her in their home stateWhy on earth should he do that? It’s not throwing salt on any wound. He’s the husband, and he has the legal right to make such decisions. He wants to bury her with his family, not with the people that spent years keeping her wishes from being fulfilled and brought in the federal government when they wouldn’t accept her wishes, his marital rights, and the decisions of the law. If I were him, I’d be afraid that the parents would try to make a shrine out of her grave instead of just letting her rest in peace.
The parents have no inherent right to decide where to bury her. Why on earth should he give up his desire to be buried with his wife with his family?
is he trying to hide something?Probably not, but that won’t stop people trying to destroy his character for the rest of his life just because he ran afowl of their politics. Posted by: LawnBoy at June 15, 2005 05:03 PM
Lawnboy~
Wow-having done all that (wills) so soon, congratulations!
I’m actually glad you did though….so much for those stupid exit polls……see where polling gets ya.
But it does bring up another question though.
You and your wife were worried about that happening so you did what was right and made a will…..Why didn’t they if they were so concerned about it that they discussed it?
Lawnboy~
Another thing….in passing me and my husband(now ex-husband) discussed a lot of things…..now that were divorced obviously things have changed in my eyes.
That is what upset her friends and family seeing as how a lot of them came forward to say that she had talked of plans of leaving him, the night before her “accident”!
Oops I know where you’re going to go w/ that one. Actually were not divorced yet (barely even started a thing actually) so God help me if something happened tomorrow…..I guess he would have control even though all my friends and family know better!
Posted by: Traci at June 15, 2005 05:20 PM“My sentence was poorly constructed. I didn’t mean that you were sickened by the videotape of Teri. Sorry for the confusion.”
So what did you mean? That it would be in bad form for the democrats to use it hurt Delay and Frist? Look, I don’t care about most things political and usually find it amusing to watch politicians and pundits grandstanding. This particular issue resonated strongly with me (and you too by the sounds of it). So when you make a statement like this:
“Why anyone would try to politicize this issue is beyond me.”
You can see why I felt compelled to point out that such moral issues was part of what won Frist and co their majority and that the democrats might do well to use this against them. Whatever works right?
Posted by: Nikita at June 15, 2005 05:28 PMNikita,
What I meant was that the Schaivo incident must be discussed as a moral issue unto itself.
The fact that you were sickened by Frists videotape is understandable. In the final analysis (as of today’s news reports) the poor woman was beyond help. She had about 1/2 of brain left and she died of dehydration. There was no trauma before or during her coma.
Whatever Frist said had nothing to do with the cause of her death.
Posted by: steve smith at June 15, 2005 05:45 PMYou and your wife were worried about that happening so you did what was right and made a will…..Why didn’t they if they were so concerned about it that they discussed it?
My understanding is that his interpretation of her wishes was based on multiple conversations in front of multiple people, partially sparked by seeing the condition his grandmother was in before death.
Of course, young people don’t often think that bad things can happen, so we don’t often prepare for it. It’s one thing to talk about long-term wishes. It’s quite another to take the issue seriously, pay a lawyer, and take the time to take care of it.
In my case, we’d talked about wills for a while (partially due to the health of family members), but I don’t know that we would have done anything about it except my employer at the time reimbursed the lawyer’s fees associated with setting up a will. It’s obviously an unusual benefit, but one I took advantage of. I don’t think any of the other 20-somethings in my group did.
…seeing as how a lot of them came forward to say that she had talked of plans of leaving him, the night before her “accident”!I’m not familiar with that claim. Posted by: LawnBoy at June 15, 2005 06:08 PM
In yet another turn in this sad affair. It was just announced on the news that the parents are going to seek a second opinion on the autopsy.
Posted by: Rocky at June 15, 2005 06:30 PMI would say the good thing that came out of this affair is how many people now have living wills.
I’m amazed, but I guess not amazed, that a second opinion was requested by the parents. I’ll excuse them and blame outside influence.
Steve, I hope you are comfortable and will be around to harrass us (L) for some time to come.
Traci: There was no “accident,” (nice try) there was no trauma, I don’t remember “divorce talk” either. Thousands of people go into Sudden Cardiac Arrest every day, many with unknowable causes, many are not old (think Duracell commercials and defibrillators), and only about 5% survive when it’s out of hospital. Of those that do survive, many are disabled. This was not a unique case, it just became a cause involving distraught parents, a dedicated husband, a—h— politicians, and power hungry zealots.
Posted by: Dave at June 15, 2005 08:07 PMI watched every news report I could find this evening and I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the decision was a correct one and there was no “foul play” involved.
A second opinion on an autopsy is family emotion not, IMO rational action.
Let the poor woman go in peace.
Posted by: steve smith at June 15, 2005 08:16 PMThe trouble doesn’t come when people take different interpretations based on a common set of facts. The trouble comes when people start trying to remake the facts to fit their agendas. Even in tragic cases where an understandable motive is at work, it is an unwise impulse and one that can only lead to further heartbreak.
There are folks who are willing to push the facts to and past the breaking point in the name of a cause, and all too obviously they took advantage of the situation here, and divided people needlessly over a question that should have been more reasonable settled by calm agreement on the facts.
This attitude that encourages the failure of compromise and cooperative investigation of the facts must stop. It is this that’s making our country more litigious, this that is turning our political discussions into unreasonable tirades.
We must admit that at some point we live in one world, though we interpret it differently. We must admit that our lives are not so distinctly separate, nor, necessarily are our interests.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 15, 2005 08:35 PMHi All:
You may not want to hear this, but the reason I just retired from the Army, is because I have a stage 4, GBM of massive size and proportions, for those of you who do not know, that is a malignant Brain Tumor. Each day, I live to the fullest because I don’t know if it will be my last. However, if any activist/pro-life/nut-job/Whackos go to any lengths to prevent my Brother from pulling the plug when it is time. I ask you this, Why? what did I ever do to you?
Moral….
Stay out of that in which you have no business being. ie My Bedroom, My Mind, and especially, MY LIFE!!
Enough said!!
As Always,
Wayne
Posted by: Wayne at June 15, 2005 09:38 PM
Wayne,
I have added you to my prayer list. It is a Conservative prayer list but I can tell you from experience, it works pretty good.
GOD Bless
Posted by: steve smith at June 15, 2005 11:34 PMJust to address the proverbial elephant in the (cyber) room…I’m sorry to hear about the illnesses striking Wayne and steve. Reading about it made me think about just how precious life is.
At the risk of possibly offending steve, I have added him and Wayne to my (moderately liberal) prayer list. =)
Thanks to you both for adding thought-provoking comments to these discussions. I wish you both peace and strength.
Posted by: Steve Westby at June 16, 2005 12:02 AMLawnboy:
First, I understand your comparison with your wife. I too have a wife with parents who I don’t really get along with. I still couldn’t imagine doing what Michael Shiavo did and take their daughter away from them when they are willing to, want to care for her. My wife (a hospice nurse) stated that she would want to have the ‘plug pulled’ in a situation like that and asked if I would follow that through and I told her that I would, unless her mom insisted that she live and insisted on taking care of her. I ultimately can’t see myself coming between a mother and her daughter.
And I’m sorry, but I think that typically, a bond between a parent and a child can’t be emulated or replaced by a spouse.
Having said that, I again state that legally, the right course of action was taken. And because people like me understand that and yet think that a better course could have been taken, this is a controversial event and topic.
Sorry, I found your post to be absolutely celebratorial, at least that was my initial reaction and I walked away with very little else in your post as far as being informative or provocative. Rushing to present something like this serves no other purpose but to say either “You were wrong and we were right!” or “See - I told you she should have died!” and I could see no other point in your post. Celebrating.
The issue was deeper than what brain function she had though a bigger tragedy would have been to find out that her brain had had some cognitive function.
Posted by: OttO at June 16, 2005 02:28 AMOttO,
I wasn’t intending it to celebratory. That’s why I added only two sentences of conclusion without any exclamation points or “I told-you-sos”.
I posted not to celebrate, but because the issue was such a big debate here a couple months ago, and new information came out about it. I knew someone would post, and I wanted the post from the blue column to be a simple summary of the findings instead of a celebratory provocation. Apparently, I failed.
Having said that, I again state that legally, the right course of action was taken. And because people like me understand that and yet think that a better course could have been taken, this is a controversial event and topic.Understood and accepted.
…a bigger tragedy would have been to find out that her brain had had some cognitive function.That’s what I meant when I mentioned relief earlier. From all the medical and legal investigations, I was pretty sure that Terri was no longer senient and aware of what was happening to her. It’s a relief to know definitively that ending her life as she requested did not cause her suffering of which she was aware. Posted by: LawnBoy at June 16, 2005 02:36 AM
Ha! I’m fascinated by the conservative posts on this subject. I suppose it’s only natural, that when you find out you’ve made a dumb-ass fool of yourself, you want the whole issue to go away.
Let me just say: I told you so. And remember that the next time y’all get behind legislation that circumvents 200 years of jurisprudence, is unconstitutional, and is based on ignorance and… Christ, I can only describe it as unthinking, mindless, religious fervor. In addition to undermining the Constitution, y’all ought to be ashamed of yourselves for putting that family through all that.
AP,
I can tell who doesn’t live in the U.S. by the posting times :)
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 16, 2005 04:01 AMDave~
How are the family’s doing now? Have you been for tea and crumpets lately? What’s that? You don’t personally know either family?
Explain to me how fighting for is any different than fighting against!
I do think the RIGHT legal action was taken.
The point is NOBODY knows, so no one should be setting around feeling as though they were right!
Same goes for Michael Jackson fans that are now bawling and celebrating in the streets……I’m glad you enjoy his music…..BUT……..THAT DOSN’T MEAN THAT YOU KNOW HIM!
Posted by: Traci at June 16, 2005 10:04 AMAP,
Very often you have some very meaningful posts complete with references etc. They are typically thought provoking and inspire spirited responses.
Lately you seem to have gotten into the habit of referring to opposing points of view and, one could easilly conclude the author of those points with dumb ass fool, based on ignorance, unthinking, mindless, etc. That’s only in this thread. There are worse examples from other threads which do not bear repeating.
You seem to be a very knowledgable and intelligent individual. IMO you dillute that status with what I consider to be derogatory/abusive type language.
Posted by: steve smith at June 16, 2005 10:44 AMSteve, it depends on the subject. I’m treating the idiots who favored undermining the Constitution in a fit of religious passion with all the dignity they deserve. So sue me.
Do you actually have a rebuttal, or are you just going to complain about how “derogatory/abusive” you think I am?
Dave and Steve Westby,
Thank you both for your kind thoughts regarding my health. Please continue to harass and chastise me as always.
I have emphysema so your comments cause me to turn up my oxygen which gives me a little exercise.
Posted by: steve smith at June 16, 2005 12:08 PMAP,
You complain profusely about how Bolton is the worst possible person to be US Ambassador because (among other reasons) his abrasive speech and attitude toward others. You claim that this will get us nowhere in the world arena.
I am suggesting in a respectful way that you may wish to consider more pleasant wording in your dialogue to earn more credibility.
Posted by: steve smith at June 16, 2005 12:43 PMsteve smith & steve westby:
Thank you for your kind actions. I appreciate those simple acts of kindness more than you will ever realize.
As Always,
Wayne
OK - so just for my info: So, is there a single anti-Bush liberal ‘paranoia’ that’s hasn’t been proved to be true?
I think the facts had a Liberal bias.
Posted by tony at June 15, 2005 12:35 PM
Tony:
Just what does that mean? Just asking. Facts can not have a bias, one way or the other, why? Because Facts don’t care, but they can be bent to make your point, just like statistics.
As Always,
Wayne
To American Pundit:
You rambled and ranted on and on about unconstitutionality, ignorance etc. and didn’t actually complete the sentence.
What exactly did the Republicans do to undermine the Constitution? I’ve seen this alluded to several times on this board but no one has specified anything. And judging from your passion about the be-all, end-all nature of the Constitution, then I suspect that you also oppose Roe v. Wade and judicial filibusters, real Constitutional crimes.
That being said, what was this family put through? You do realize that the family was already divided before the courts got involved, don’t you?
Or in your glee over the reported condition of Terry Shiavo and your desire to show your fellow 12 year olds how to name-call, did you forget this?
Posted by: OttO at June 16, 2005 04:46 PMOtto, No one is happy that Terri’s brain was dead. It’s been dead for many years, every independent doctor who saw the CT agrees that it was being resorbed into the body. The autopsy just put a number on it and showed how incredibly naive, misled, stupid, or bullheaded the “she’ll be better with therapy” crowd was. I think you forget how ugly and abusive that side was. I think you’re ignoring how wrong that side was.
Wayne, Hang tough, it’s hard road you’re on but you won’t be alone.
Traci, I don’t like Michael Jackson’s music, so what was your point again?
Wayne and Steve,
I’ll be praying for both of you. As Dave said, hang tough.
Just thought I’d share a quote from South Park (don’t worry, it’s not obscene)
Lawyer: [reading from Kenny’s will] If I’m ever in a persistant vegitative state [flips to next page]
Please, for the love of god, don’t show me on national television in that state.
Kinda makes you wonder if we screwed up with Terri, eh?
Posted by: Zeek at June 16, 2005 11:51 PMYou complain profusely about how Bolton is the worst possible person…
Steve, you’d better turn up the oxygen a little more. I’ve never complained about Bolton. I’ve written here that Democrats should just let it go. If Bolton is the message Bush wants to send the UN, let him. I don’t think the rest of the world is going to be shocked by Bush’s disrespect anyhow. And what does that have to do with Schiavo?
What exactly did the Republicans do to undermine the Constitution?
OttO, the 11th Circuit Court found the law unconstitutional.
AP;
Many laws are overturned as unconstitutional at appeal. The problem I have is that DeLay/Frist/et.al. knew it was unconstitutional and did it anyway as pandering to their base.
Otto said : “Roe v. Wade and judicial filibusters, real Constitutional crimes”
Just because you’ve been trained not to like them, does’nt make them crimes of any sort.
Nikita,
Thank you for your concern and kindness.
Posted by: steve smith at June 17, 2005 09:00 AMDave, I agree. The fact that Frist wrote, and the GOP passed, and the President signed, a law that only applied in that one single case should be setting off alarms bells over in the conservative camp.
In fact, it reminds me of how conservatives on the SCOTUS appointed Bush president in 2000, and then declared their ruling could not be used as precedent in any future case. That’s crazy.
Posted by: American Pundit at June 17, 2005 09:03 AMAP,
Sorry for the wording in my post implying that you were a Bolton “basher”, my comment was just drawing a comparison to my previous “nit picking” about my observations that I thought some of the words used in some of your posts could be better presented. (refer my post of 6/16 at 10:44 am).
I am cranking up the oxygen as we speak.
The post was off the topic of Schaivo.
Posted by: steve smith at June 17, 2005 09:08 AMNo apology necessary steve. As you can probably imagine, I have a very thick skin. But thanks. :)
Jeb Bush is demanding an investigation into Michael Schiavo’s 911 call. He feels it took Michael too long to call 911:
Posted by: Julia at June 17, 2005 01:30 PMThis case is never going to end because apparently nobody wants it to end.
Julia,
One wonders why this wasn’t an issue in ‘92.
New evidence?
Mr. Bush, just how screwed up are the criminal investigations in your state?
American Pundit -
What was in the law that has you so upset? And what law exactly did the 11th circuit supposedly overturn?
Maybe I’m missing something, but the only thing I recall the Republicans doing was requesting a federal court to allow a judicial review over a previous court (Greer?) decision. The review took place and Greer’s position was upheld. Nothing unconstitutional, intrusive or illegal here (though I don’t agree with it myself). The Congress and the President passing a law doesn’t bother me near as much as the courts passing laws, and the courts probably shoudn’t have been involved in the first place.
Laws are enacted all the time based on one case, especially ‘laws’ passed by the courts that are supposedly unconstitutional in my mind simply because I don’t like them (like Lawrence v. Texas - where nine people decided for the rest of the country that there was a ‘right’ to sodomy), which leads me to…
Dave:
>>Just because you’ve been trained not to like them, does’nt make them crimes of any sort.
Trained? Explain to me the Constituional justification for Roe v. Wade. Explain how the Supreme Court (who are now the most powerful nine unelected people in the country) gets to take policy decisions away from the voters and their elected representatives or the states themselves. Flip through the Constitution and tell me where the courts get to decide the legality of medical procedures or what constitutes life. Sorry, I expect the people that I vote for to inject some of their personal opinion into their decisions, but NOT the courts.
Or in the cases of judicial filibusters explain to me why the Constitution states very clearly and specifically that the President gets to decide who gets nominated and the Senate’s job is to either accept OR reject those nominees, not to decide that the President’s choices don’t need to be voted on.
So who trained you?
Posted by: OttO at June 17, 2005 02:50 PMAs I said Otto, you were trained. The case load supporting Roe v Wade is substantial. Filibusters are a senate rule and can be changed by the senate. They didn’t because it’s a good rule. Your advise and consent argument is bull ka ka.
Posted by: Dave at June 17, 2005 03:09 PMCan I just point out, that USUALLY the parent has the well being for the child in mind.
The Spouse lets face it, is not a relative.
The spouse can get re-married and have a new companion.
You cannot replace the child you gave birth to.
In European coutries,such as Greece
(birthplace of Democracy) the parent is present at time of labor to ensure the spouse makes the correct decisions (when it comes to choosing who lives or dies).
My advice after the Sciavo case, please make a will and address your last wishes, regardless of your age.
Posted by: Jeannie at June 17, 2005 03:40 PMDave:
>>As I said Otto, you were trained. The case load supporting Roe v Wade is substantial. Filibusters are a senate rule and can be changed by the senate. They didn’t because it’s a good rule. Your advise and consent argument is bull ka ka
I’m glad you feel that way (that somehow I’m trained and I guess that you are…not?). But saying it doesn’t make it so.
Try again: what was the constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade? I’ve read fairly extensively on it and I’m curious as to what you have to say about it besides ‘the case load is substantial’, whatever that means.
Filibusters are a Senate rule indeed (though I question how anyone in a representative democracy can call it a good rule), but filibusters for judicial nominees clearly violates specific wording in the Constitution as specified by Alexander Hamilton, who wrote in Federatlist #66:
“It will be the Office of the President to nominate and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There will, of course, BE NO EXERTION OF CHOICE ON THE PART OF THE SENATE. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; BUT THEY CANNOT THEMSELVES CHOOSE-they can ONLY RATIFY OR REJECT the choice he may have made.”
Even the reasons for rejecting a nominee are supposed to be limited to publicly compelling reasons, not what the Alliance for Justice or other liberal groups consider to be compelling. But to prevent a vote from taking place (simply because it can’t be defeated) is an atrocity to the majority of voters out there who apparently disagree.
So I guess I was trained by a founding father. Again, who trained you?
Just so I understand, if Dave likes the court decisions then they must be right and those who oppose them are ‘trained’ to oppose it. I wonder who trained Hamilton? It must have been Rush Limbaugh, right? I guess that Alex should have been informed that his ideas in the Constitution were ‘bull ka-ka’ because 230 years later those very ideas might prevent the Democrats from wielding power that they didn’t even earn the Democratic way.
Rocky,
Maybe we should ask Jeb to talk to George about the importance of the judiciary. Let’s compare the investigation in Gitmo to Jeb’s call for an investigation into a 911 call made over 15 years ago.
I don’t think a more amazing comparison can be made.
Posted by: Julia at June 17, 2005 04:19 PMThe Spouse lets face it, is not a relative.
Wha?????
Posted by: LawnBoy at June 17, 2005 04:36 PM>>The Spouse lets face it, is not a relative.
Wha?????
I think this means something that I suggested earlier - that typically a bond between a parent and a child cannot be duplicated between a husband and a wife. Producing a child, giving birth and raising and nurturing that child is a powerful thing, one of the most powerful things I think that you can get out of life and it doesn’t change when the the child gets married.
Your child is your child forever. Spouses can come and go (sometimes often), though legally, a spouse should have power over the parents in making decisions with or for the spouse. I still just question the reasoning of the husband in not allowing the parents to care for their daughter, even if she at some point did suggest that this wouldn’t be her wish.
Posted by: OttO at June 17, 2005 04:50 PMAt this point I wonder if the “parents” could possibly make any correct decision regarding their daughter.
This from the Guardian Unlimited:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1507585,00.html
“Last night a lawyer for Ms Schiavo’s parents said that, regardless of the autopsy findings, they continue to believe their daughter had not been in a persistent vegetative state.
David Gibbs told Associated Press they planned to discuss the autopsy with other medical experts and might take some unspecified legal action.
“We are, at this point, examining every option and no decisions have been made.” “
This seems to be the sad case of two parents that while being pushed by outside presure can’t let go.
Posted by: Rocky at June 17, 2005 05:19 PM
This from the Associated Press;
6/17/05 1:25AM GMT
By MITCH STACY , Associated Press Writer
“In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the autopsy did nothing to change President Bush’s position that Schiavo’s feeding tube should not have been disconnected.”
So now, all that know better than the medical professionals, have spoken.
I just know that this will be dragging on and on and on and on and on…..
Posted by: Rocky at June 17, 2005 08:30 PMMeanwhile, Jeb Bush’s attempt to score big political points in this pathetic mess went unsuccessful. He was apparently hoping that he could step in and look like a “big hero” to the rest of the right-wing-nuts, except that his attempt was foiled by the judges…so what does the Bush camp do next? Come out with vitriolic attacks on the judicial system! Any doubts who wants to run for president after W? That is truly frightening!
Posted by: capn mike at June 18, 2005 12:01 PMLast post on this for me;
Otto;
You claim there is no case law supporting Roe V. Wade. Since day one there have been attempts to overturn. Everyone of those attempts was defeated. That’s the case law.
Your one quote of Hamilton does not constitutional scholar make. I’m not one either but my understanding is “advise and consent” does not mean “thou shall not fillibuster.” Fillibuster is not “choosing” it’s rejecting.
Finally, I accept any court ruling whether I like it or not. The rightists are the ones with the inability to accept judges rulings. When they don’t like a ruling, it’s “activist judges changing the law.” Thats a specious argument, purely emotive and injures our nation as being one of law rather than one of mob rule.
