Crush Liberalism

20 Comments »

1. I think you’re doing Judge Greer an injustice. He listened to five doctors, found three credible and two not credible. In fact, in kinda sounds like the two he found not credible were completely full of s***. He all but calls them liars. The one who claimed he’d cured 50 people couldn’t even name one on the stand.

   You can read his decision for yourself. Seems pretty damned reasonable to me. Three doctors had all sorts of evidence on their side, and two (who aren’t even experts in the field–one deals with whiplash) had nothing credible.

   See for yourself. It’s ain’t that long a read.

   http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt

   Comment by Anonymous | March 20, 2005

2. I think its terrible that there are people out there trying to decide when a person should die!!

   Comment by Mel-N-Okla | March 20, 2005

3. They’ve decided that her legal guardian is correct when he says she wouldn’t have wanted to live as a vegetable hooked up to a tube.

   Would you?

   Here’s the important parts of the decision. Read what Judge Greer had to say about the “expert” doctors:

   http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt

   [Excerpts]

   The court also had the opportunity to observe the witnesses when they testified, to note body language, pauses, inflections and other non-verbal factors utilized in determining credibility which would not appear in a transcript of these proceedings.

   Three of the five doctors testified that Terry Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state, although Dr. Cranford felt it more appropriate to phrase it permanent vegetative state which meant that the condition was irreversible. Two of the doctors felt that she was not in a persistent vegetative state. These two sets of opinions had little in common. Those who felt she was not in a persistent vegetative state placed great emphasis upon her interaction with her mother during Dr. Maxfield’s examination and the tracking of a balloon. Those who felt that she was in a persistent vegetative state felt that her actions were neither consistent nor reproducible but rather were random reflexes in response to stimuli. However, the court has not and will not make its decision or a simple head count but will instead consider all factors.

   At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schlinder tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.

   Dr. Hammesfahr testified that he felt that he was able to get Terry Schiavo to reproduce repeatedly to his commands. However, by the court’s count, he gave 105 commands to Terry Schiavo and, at his direction, Mrs. Schindler gave an additional 6 commands. Again, by the court’s count, he asked her 61 questions and Mrs. Schindler, at his direction, asked her an additional 11 questions. The court saw few actions that could be considered responsive to either those commands or those questions. The videographer focused on her hands when Dr. Hammesfahr was asking her to squeeze. While Dr. Hammesfahr testified that she squeezed his finger on command, the video would not appear to support that and his reaction on the video likewise would not appear to support that testimony. [He's saying in a polite way that Dr. Hammesfahr is a liar]

   Viewing all of the evidence as a whole, and acknowledging that medicine is not a precise science, the court finds that the credible evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that Terry Schiavo remains in a persistent vegetative state. Even Dr. Maxfield acknowledges that vegetative patients can track on occasion and that smiling can be a reflex.

   [This next part is important; Judge Greer says in a nice way that Dr. Hammesfahr is a lying quack. Read it carefully.]

   Dr. Hammesfahr feels his vasodilatation therapy will have a positive affect on Terry Schiavo. Drs. Greer, Bambakidis and Cranford do not feel it will have such an affect. It is clear that this therapy is not recognized in the medical community. Dr. Hammesfahr operates his clinic on a cash basis in advance which made the discussion regarding Medicare eligibility quite irrelevant. A lot of the time also was spent regarding his nominations for a Nobel Prize. While he certainly is a self-promoter and should have had for the court’s review a copy of the letter from the Nobel committee in Stockholm, Sweden, the truth of the matter is that he is probably the only person involved in these proceedings who had a United States Congressman recommend him for such an award. Whether the committee “accepted” the nomination, “received” the nomination or whatever, it is not that significant. What is significant, however, and what undemises his creditability is that he did not present to this court any evidence other than his generalized statements as to the efficacy of his therapy on brain damaged individuals like Terry Schiavo. He testified that he has treated about 50 patients in the same or worse condition than Terry Schiavo since 1994 but he offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no tests results to support his claim that he had success in all but one of them. If his therapy is as effective as he would lead this court to believe, it is inconceivable that he would not produce clinical results of these patients he has treated. And surely the medical literature would be replete with this new, now patented, procedure. Yet, he has only published one article and that was in 1995 involving some 63 patients, 60% of whom were suffering from whiplash. None of these patients were in a persistent vegetative state and all were conversant. Even he acknowledges that he is aware of no article or study that shows vasodilatation therapy to be an effective treatment for persistent vegetative state patients. The court can only assume that such substantiations are not available, not just catalogued in such a way that they can not be readily identified as he testified.

   Neither Dr. Hammesfahr nor Dr. Maxfield was able to credibly testify that the treatment options that they offered would significantly improve Terry Schiavo’s quality of life. While Dr. Hammesfahr blithely stated he should be able to get her to talk, he admitted he was not sure in what way he can improve her condition although he feels certain her can. He also told the court that “only rarely” do his patients have no improvement. Again, he is extremely short of specifics.

   [And so on. Do you still think Judge Greer should be "disbarred"? Sounds like he did a pretty good job with a very tough case.]

   Comment by Anonymous | March 20, 2005

4. Anonymous,

   Thank you for posting. All views are welcome, whether they are similar or dissimilar to mine. It makes it more fun that way!

   If you read my posting, you will see that my point was not whether Terri should be kept alive. Like I said, reasonable people have reasonable differences on this. My point was that judge Greer ignored a federal subpoena by Congress, simply because he disagreed with it.

   Everything you posted (at length) about the proceedings of the case are not in dispute. But unless I missed it (and please tell me if I did), you mentioned nothing about the Congressional subpoena. A state judge has absolutely no authority to overrule a federal subpoena. None. And that is my point.

   Look, personally I have great reservations about letting the woman starve. Good Lord, if the military let any terrorist prisoner in Gitmo miss breakfast one day, the ACLU would have a hissy fit about the humanity of such “torture” and “starvation.” But it’s OK if the woman is a vegetable instead of a terrorist?

   I can see the flip side, too. Let the record show that if I’m ever in a vegetative state like Terri, I don’t want a feeding tube. I’m asking to be starved, OK?

   The Schiavo case is complex and tragic, and I begrudge no one for taking one position or the other. However, we are a country of laws, not of feelings or opinions. We have legal processes to follow, whether we like them or not. And we cannot have any lower court judges ignoring federal subpoenas simply because they feel strongly about their own views or decisions.

   That was my point. Nothing more. So to answer your question about Greer being disbarred: he should either be disbarred, jailed, or fined for imposing his own judicial activist rulings contrary to a federal subpoena. And I’d feel the same if he’d ruled contrary to any federal law, regardless of the case or topic.

   Comment by Jonathan | March 21, 2005

5. Jon, thanks for responding to my comments.

   In answer to your specific question, the law is very clear. The federal government had no jurisdiction over this case–at least not until last night when Congress passed an extraordinary law to give it jurisdiction.

   Judge Greer did not illegally ignore “a federal subpoena”–he rightly recognized the federal government was improperly asserting itself in a state case.

   The feds don’t automatically have jurisdiction over the states in every case. There has to be federal law at issue.

   In fact the Schindlers had already tried to get it changed to a federal court and were denied for that reason: no federal issue at stake. Greer was right.

   Last night Congress, by special act, took the case from the state and gave it to a federal judge on the grounds that he hear a petition from the Schindlers that Terri’s “civil rights” were being violated. THAT’S a federal matter.

   Don’t be surprised if it’s turned down. The federal judge will likely agree it’s not a federal matter–that is, that her civil rights haven’t been violated. Then the Schindlers will appeal, etc., all the way back up to the SC again, probably.

   Again, I think you’re being unfair to Greer by calling him a “judicial activist”. He’s ruled strictly according to the law so far. It’s the Congress that being activist. They didn’t like Greer’s decision, and recognizing they have no authority in the matter they voted to give themselves the authority. They used the “civil rights” argument as the pretext to get it into federal court. It’s really, really, weird.

   And probably unconstitutional. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the Supreme Court to find that the legislature can vote to change a venue in a civil trial between two private parties if they don’t like the decision.

   Regarding Terri herself, let me ask you how would you feel if it’s framed this way: as someone forcing a brain-damaged woman in a “persistent vegetative state” to go on living against what the courts have repeatedly determined was a credible representation of her will because her relatives prefer it?

   Comment by Anonymous | March 21, 2005

6. My understanding is that the Federal Government, trumps State Goverment. True, before the Subpoena, there was not a Federal Case, however, once subpoenaed, Terri is under the protection of the Congress of the United States until the Senate chooses to release Terri of her responsibility. The FL judge Greer, ignored the subpoena. If after she had been released by the Senate he would have made this ruling, I guess the Judge would be on safer grounds. But Greer just couldn’t wait to become an executioner, and jumped the gun.

   Personally, I have a problem with the state, in any matter determining what life is viable and what is not. I think we head down a slippery slope when people and the government says, what kind of life would she be able to live. People forget, the key word is Live. Terri is alive, her brain works, her hart works, her other bodilly organs work, she is alive with a diminished intelectual compasity.
   I’m a Special Education Teacher and a Special Olympics Coach. I deal with students who have feeding tubes every year. Working with them, and opening my heart to them brings some of the greatest joys in my life. My worry is if the government starts declaring that Terri’s life is not worth it, because of her Traumatic Brain injury, what about children with other mental handicaps or disabilities. Do we Euthenize them, like the Nazis. I would choose to error like the president said today on the side of life. and let Terri live out her life.

   Comment by Anonymous | March 21, 2005

7. You’re confusing the subpoena the Congress is considering issuing to put Terri Schiavo under federal protection with the order they filed before. Judge Greer was completely correct that Congress had no jurisdiction. That’s why they had to pass a special law last night.

   And you’re presuming that Terri Schiavo would want to live in her current condition. The court found her husband credible when he said she wouldn’t want to. You can choose not to believe that but you should probably read some of the case before you’re so sure.

   As it stands you’re the one saying what type of life she should live. Comparing her to Special Ed students is not reasonable or relevant. Comparisons to Nazism are just unbelievable.

   Calling the judge an executioner is a pretty harsh statement. Have you read the decision? Have you read the testimony of all the doctors?

   Is it inconceivable to you that she might not want to be remembered the way she is now? Or to go on living this way? That’s what this is all about. No, she didn’t leave instructions. But surely you can look at her and find credible the idea that she wouldn’t approve. The courts found that repeatedly.

   I wonder if it would make any difference to you if she had left instructions. Would you FORCE her to stay alive against her will?

   My wife told me last night if this ever happens please dear god don’t let me be like that on national TV. Not to hard to believe.

   Comment by Anonymous | March 21, 2005

8. First, Yes, I read Greer’s ruling.
   And I maintain that Judge Greer came to his dission without a respect for life, or consideration of any of the extrordinary aspects of this case. As you pointed out Greer treats the doctors who say Terri could improve with therapy with contempt. Showing his one sided view of the situation and his lack of respect for leading medical professionals. The judge does not take into consideration Michael Shiavo’s reasoning for his wife to die. Terri’s husband has a 2 millon dollar life insurance policy, on Terri and will benifit from upon her death. Also Michael Schiavo, who was not active in this case until he realized he would benifit, has gone on with with his life, living with another woman whom he has two children. Micheal has chosen not to devorce Terri because If he would have he would not benifit from the life insurance policy. Terri’s parents and family are more than willing to take on the responsibility for Terri, why not let them.
   To answer your question, If Terri left a Living Will, that stated that no extrordinary measures were to be used to keep her alive, that would be Terri’s choice. However, She did not have that Living Will and just going on the word of a single person, who may gain 2 million dollars upon her death seems to be fishy.

   Secondly, to compare this to my special ed students is right on in this case. There is already discussions in intelectual, medical and political circles about the viability of the life of mentally and physically handicapped. This debate began with the conclusion of the begining stages of the Human Genome project. Some scientests argued that with this knowlege, the human race could eliminate many of these disorders that cause mental and physical handicaps by aborting these fetuses and steralizing those who carry these genetic disorders. (Sound like Nazi Germany) The argument that these scientists use is that it will cost the government less money to care for these people and what type of life would these people live. “Would you want to live like this”.
   Once this happens, Who makes this decision, of who lives and who dies? The Government’s Judges, Congress, Doctors? Once we go down this road, determining that Terri Schiavo’s life is not worth it, What’s next?

   Comment by Anonymous | March 21, 2005

9. Actually, Steve (that would be Anonymous #2, the special ed teacher) picks up on my exact point, which was that Greer had no authority to ignore a Senate subpoena. Our federalist form of government dictates that the federal government, no matter how overreaching we perceive it to be (and believe me, I find it plenty overreaching), does indeed trump state government…and that goes for the judiciary.

   I forget the case, so forgive me, but I recall this in college. During Alabama’s sorry segregation days, the Alabama Supreme Court had upheld a lower court ruling against a black plaintiff (and again, I don’t recall what). The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Alabama courts’ rulings, and remanded it back to the Alabama Supreme Court. In a galling display of audacity, the Alabama Supreme Court reinstated its initial ruling, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court “erred” in its ruling.

   That’s right…a state court ruled that the federal government was wrong and that Alabama was under no obligation to adhere to the USSC ruling. That appalling ruling was appealed to the USSC who, needless to say, disagreed. The USSC reinforced the supremacy of the federal government (not just the judiciary) over the state governments.

   What Greer did was akin to what Alabama did, albeit not for racist reasons. I’m not even talking about whether or not Greer had sound legal ground for ruling in favor of Michael Schiavo. That legal ground was suspended, pending the Senate’s subpoena. When he said the feds had no standing in the case, he ignored the supremacy of federal law (and a subpoena is governed by federal law). He pulled an Alabama Supreme Court.

   I’m sorry, but there’s absolutely nothing you can do to dispute that. The facts just aren’t with you here. With all due respect, I think you’re pleased with the ruling and thus are willing to turn a blind eye to the fact that it was judicial activism at work.

   Let’s look at the flip side…a hypothetical.

   Let’s say that a state court ruled that Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional, since there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees a woman’s right to an abortion. Nothing. Not even close. I would argue that the judge on that state court should be held in contempt, jailed, fined, and/or disbarred. Why? Because the USSC has already ruled (irrespective on how flawed the ruling) that a woman does have a constitutional right to an abortion. The ruling of Roe was without question judicial activism…but there’s a legal process in place to overturn in. If a subsequent USSC overturns a prior USSC ruling, that’s one thing. If the Constitution is amended to outlaw abortion, that’s one thing. If a state court judge interprets the Constitution differently than the USSC, he still has no right to ignore it or overturn it.

   And that…and only that…is my point.

   Comment by Jonathan | March 21, 2005

10. Guys, please.

    I’m not trying to start a fight. But that stuff is all wrong.

    Go here and read the history of the case. It’s an impartial legal review.

    http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

    You can see the original February, 2000 decision, or you can skip down to March 18 to see the federal issue raised.

    As far as Michael Schiavo is concerned, the courts have repeatedly found that he was a devoted caregiver and tried to “rehabilitate” her for years until he was told her brain had deteriorated and she would be a vegetable forever.

    He took her for experimental treatment, hired speech therapists, etc–the whole deal, for YEARS. And all the while the Schindlers were telling him to “get on with his life” and make them guardians…so THEY would inherit the money when Terri died.

    Only EIGHT YEARS LATER, in 1998, when he was told her brain was gone–GONE–did he ask the court to decide what she’d want. The doctors all said he was the main reason she’d done so well physically.

    But did you know the fight between him and the parents started because they wanted half his “loss of consortium” award? Not the big $700,000 settlement for Terri–but the $300,000 he got as the husband who’s wife was misdiagnosed. The Schindlers wanted half of THAT. Back in 1993. He said no and they never spoke after that.

    I’m not making this stuff up–it’s all there in the transcripts in black and white. This case is not what it seems.

    Comment by Anonymous | March 21, 2005

11. Ok, let me guess: Judge Whittemore is a “Clinton-appointed murderer”, right? And he should be disbarred, too?

    And the judge after that? And that?

    And when poor Terri Schiavo dies before the Supreme Court denies it again–which they will–it’s the fault of “liberals”, right?

    I think I’m getting the hang of this. You start with the answer you want and work your way backwards, cherry-picking and manufacturing facts to prove it. Nice.

    God Save the Republic from you people. You’ll have us all in chains soon.

    Comment by Anonymous | March 22, 2005

12. Jon, in your hypotheticals the issues involved rights that were found to be guaranteed under the Constitution. So they were federal.

    The Constitution doesn’t specifically guarantee the right to an abortion, but the court found that it’s covered by the right to privacy established in Griswald v. Connecticut.

    Note to pro-lifers reading this: I’m not arguing the merits, just discussing with Jon the reasoning behind its becoming a federal issue.

    You’re completely correct about the Alabama segregation issue; obviously the Constitution guarantees blacks the same rights as whites. Well, that’s obvious now, anyway.

    Griswald v. Connecticut is interesting, by the way. It used to be illegal in Connecticut to “counsel” married couples about “preventing conception”. It took this ruling to establish that the Constitution protects the “right to privacy in marital relations”.

    Note that Griswald hadn’t offered “other medical services”–which were also illegal under Connecticut law. He’d only offered “information” and “advice”. Think about that being illegal. That’s the way it used to be.

    Argued: March 29, 1965
    Decided: June 7, 1965

    Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.

    Conclusion

    Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.

    Comment by Anonymous | March 22, 2005

13. I dont think you get it right, I just want the law to be followed. I feel the supreem law of the land, the Constitution, is an inspired doccument that limmits the power of government in some cases and empowers it in others, Most believe it empowers our Fed government is in cases of Life, Liberty and Persuit of Happiness (I know that comes from the Decleration of Independence). Needless to say that is why I have no beef with most civil liberties cases. I think most conservatives have a problem when the government, especially the Judiciary over extends its constitutional powers and denies people rights of Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness.

    I think Johnny and I both feel Judge Greer overstep his constutional power when he ordered the imediate removal of the feeding tube inlight of a congressional subpoena and congress delaying their recess to address this issue. Greer jumped the gun, and in doing so is in contempt of congress.

    I feel judge Greer got it wrong, and I hope the people of Penallas Florida exercise their rights as we have in Florida, to vote him out of office if he is not removed first.

    As for the Federal Judge, as I understand he ruled, he does not have the right to overrule on this subject and upheald Greers ruling. Fine! I disagree, but the Federal judge didn’t do anything illeagal in ruling that way. He followed the Federal law passed this weekend. This judge did his job, and it’s now in the hands of the lawyers and their ability to argue quickly to an appelate court. That is constitutional and legal.

    If the Federal judge reads into a law something that is not there, uses international standards or law to override a constitutional point, or shows disregard for seporation of powers, like judge Greer did, the Judge should be gone. Lets not forget that all government officials Local, State and Federal have to take an oath to uphold the Constution of the United States. If the Judge doesn’t do that, they need to be removed and we need to find someone who will use the constitution as their guidlines.

    Comment by Anonymous | March 22, 2005

14. If Judge Greer got it wrong, why did Congress have to pass a law specifically moving this case from State to Federal court?

    For goodness sake, the Federal Judge the Schindlers tried to get the case before on Friday HIMSELF DENIED THE MOTION due to a “lack of jurisdiction”.

    Judge Greer didn’t do ANYTHING wrong. Until Congress passed the “Terri Act’ the fed had no jurisdiction. Even the federal judge agreed with that. That’s why Congress had to pass a new law at 1am on Monday.

    And it’s all for nothing; no Federal court will hear this, much less grant it. And the members of Congress who passed the “Terri Act” knew that from the start. They’re playing a really cynical game here.

    Comment by Anonymous | March 22, 2005

15. I have two people to address here.

    The first is the one who said “God Save the Republic from you people. You’ll have us all in chains soon.”

    First of all, welcome…I think. Secondly, I will address you no more, due to your inflammatory and intellectually vacuous rhetoric. Open and thoughtful dialogue is welcome here, but not your undignified drivel. (Sidebar: Who do you mean by you people…the overwhelming majority of people in this country who have patently rejected liberalism, so much so that your only hope to further an agenda that no one wants is to use the judiciary instead of the legislature?

    You’re an interesting museum piece, but I’m moving on to the next exhibit.

    The second person I’m addressing is the Anonymous who has disagreed with me from the first post. You, sir (or ma’am…I don’t want to be presumptuous), are welcome here any day. You and I seem to royally disagree on the issue, but it’s done with respect…a simple “agree to disagree” attitude. As Steve can tell you, I’m completely cool with that. Hell, I encourage it…makes things interesting here!

    Now, to address your question of Congress’ “Terri’s Law”. I’ll concede that it is a cynical ploy to address their pro-life constituency. I will also submit, though, that they passed the law because they knew the judiciary was predisposed to let this woman die in a manner less humane than death row inmates or even household pets.

    Again, let me emphasize that my main beef is with the judge defying a Senate subpoena. It doesn’t matter if the Senate (or feds in general) have jurisdiction…a subpoena was issued, and federal subpoena law prohibits anyone from interfering with that! Period. If the Senate issued a subpoena for Mark McGwire to testify about steroids in baseball, and a Missouri judge said the Senate couldn’t do that because McGwire was about to be sentenced to the state pen for (fill in the crime here), the Missouri judge would be as guilty as Greer in defying federal subpoena laws.

    Comment by Jonathan | March 22, 2005

16. I definately agree with Johnny, I’m having as fun of a time as I can have. Anyone who is willing to argue things with half of a brain is cool with me, regardless of their stands on any of the issues. As was said about Reagan, We can disagree without being diagreeable. I have an open mind. And I know others who post here have them to. Decent is always welcome, as long as it’s with class and taste.

    Well okay, tastfull most of the time. Bevis and Butthead quotes are always welcome when appropriate.
    Hugh, Hugh, Hugh

    Steve

    Comment by Anonymous | March 22, 2005

17. Ok, but I thought calling the judge an “executioner” was pretty inflammatory. This was a hard case and it ain’t fair to say that. He heard all the evidence and he made a decision. That’s his job. You can disagree but the other guy called him an executioner. Just don’t think that’s fair. He had to decide based on testimony what Terri Schiavo would want and he did his best to do that.

    I don’t think anyone reading his decisions can rightly say he didn’t try to do his best. He believed some people and he didn’t believe some others. That’s his job.

    As far as the federel suphoena, I have no idea. But her parents have had since 1998 to come up with real medical evidence that there’s any hope, and they couldn’t. The judge gave them every chance. The other guy said he treated their experts with contemp but he didn’t he gave them every chance. They just had nothing, nothing. Again and again he asked them for any medical evidence to prove there was hope and they had none. The doc who said she squeezed his finger was full of it–there was a camera pointed right at her hands.

    What’s the judge supposed to do? say ok, you admit you have no evidence and my own eyeballs tell me you’re lying and all these other doctors have CAT scans but heck I’ll go with you? What kind of judge is that? Even if he did it would get reversed.

    Comment by Anonymous | March 22, 2005

18. Hi Jon,

    I haven’t got time today to look into the state supremecy of this issue, but someone sent me this story, which says it pretty well. This is just excerpts.

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

    This morning’s decision by Congress and President Bush—to authorize new federal legislation that will obliterate years of state court litigation, and justify re-inserting a feeding tube into Terri Schiavo, based on new and illusory federal constitutional claims—is not about law. It is congressional activism, plain and simple; legislative overreaching and hubris taken to absurd extremes.

    Let’s be clear: The piece of legislation passed late last night, the so-called “Palm Sunday Compromise,” has nothing whatever to do with the rule of law. The rule of law in this country holds that this is a federalist system—in which private domestic matters are litigated in state, not federal courts.

    The rule of law also requires a fundamental separation of powers—in which legislatures do not override final, binding court decisions solely because the outcome is not the one they like. The rule of law requires comity between state and federal courts—wherein each respects and upholds the jurisdiction and authority of the other. The rule of law requires that we look skeptically at legislation aimed at mucking around with just one life to the exclusion of any and all similarly situated individuals.

    This congressional authority to simply override years of state court fact-finding brings with it other superpowers, including the power of gratuitous name-calling: Members of Congress unable to pronounce Schiavo’s name just last week are denouncing her husband as an adulterer and common law bigamist who withheld proper medical care from her. I wonder what they’d say about my parenting—or yours—if they decided to make a federal case out of every domestic-custody dispute currently resolved in state court proceedings.

    This is not a slippery-slope case, where it’s a short hop from “executing” those in persistent vegetative conditions to killing anyone with a disability. This is a case in which an established right-to-refuse-treatment claim, litigated for years up and down through the appeals courts, is being thwarted by parents with no custodial claim to their child. By stepping in merely to sow doubt as to whom Terri Schiavo’s proper custodian might be, rather than creating some new constitutional right to a “culture of life,” Congress has simply called the existing legal regime into doubt without establishing a new one. This new law offers no clarity about what the new federal claims might be. It just forum-shops for a more tractable judge.

    You can put aside the doctrine of federalism for Terri Schiavo, and the principles of separation of powers, and comity, and of deference to finality and the rule of law. But you’d want to be certain, on the day you do so, that what you’re sacrificing them for some concrete legal value that matters a whole lot more.

    Comment by Anonymous | March 22, 2005

19. Hi I want to add to my earlier comment that the doctor who claimed Terri squeezed his finger even though a camera pointed right at their hands showed otherwise is the same one who claimed he’d been nominated for a Nobel prize but couldn’t seem to find the letter from Sweden to prove it.

    He’s the same one who runs the “cash upfront” clinic for whiplash patients, and claims to have cured 50 people just like Terri but couldn’t document any of them–or even come up with their names–because his papers were “unavailable”.

    Please. Judge Greer was more than fair to him. The other doctors were jumping out of their chairs listening to this guy. Judge Greer was polite enough to say something like “there was considerable disagreement over his reading of the CAT scan.” Yeah, that’s putting it mildly.

    Somehow Judge Greer didn’t buy the argument that his magic “cash upfront” therapy, which is not recognized by the medical community and for which he could offer NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE–not even one name of one person it’s helped–didn’t legally constitute “hope of significant improvement” for the purpose of determining what Terri–not her parents–would want. Go figure.

    I think Judge Greer did a helluva job. I really think that. I’m sorry if people hate the outcome so much they hate him for it, but he did a great job with a tough case. He had a narrow mandate and he had to base his judgement strictly according to the law as set forth in the FSC case Guardianship of Estelle M. Browning. That’s the controlling law in this instance–he applied it perfectly.

    Comment by Anonymous | March 22, 2005

20. It is Frist and company who are in contempt of Congress. See T + 7

    Comment by P-BS-Watcher | March 25, 2005

« Previous | Next »

Site info

Crush Liberalism
Theme: Andreas04 by Andreas Viklund. Blog at WordPress.com.