Posted on 03/22/2005 5:21:34 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court's history on right-to-die cases is pretty thin.
It ruled in 1990 that a terminally ill person has a right to refuse life-sustaining treatment. And next term it plans to consider whether the federal government can prosecute doctors who help ill patients die.
Between those cases, the court has not said much, choosing to allow states to decide the issue.
Terri Schiavo's case offers a number of legal questions for the court to consider if, as expected, it reaches the justices. Among them is whether she actually requested that artificial means not be used to keep her alive and whether state or federal courts should be the venue to determine her fate.
The parents of Schiavo, who is brain-damaged, asked federal courts to reinsert her feeding tube over the wishes of Schiavo's husband, Michael, who says she would not want to be kept alive in her condition.
"I can't imagine the Supreme Court wants to get bogged down in the intricacies of who should be making the decision in this particular case," said Pamela Karlan, a constitutional law professor at Stanford and former Supreme Court clerk. "The court tends to defer to states on family-law issues."
An emergency filing to the high court that seeks to reinsert Schiavo's feeding tube while the case is litigated would go first to Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee who oversees such appeals out of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Kennedy, who has staked a moderate position on social issues, would have the option to act on the petition alone, although on previous emergency requests involving Schiavo he has referred the matter to the full nine-member court.
The Supreme Court ruled 15 years ago that a terminally ill patient has a constitutional right to decline medical treatment. But it also said that right was not absolute, holding that a state may impose a high legal burden on a family to show a patient had actually consented.
The ruling returned the case of Nancy Cruzan to Missouri state court, which eventually determined the comatose woman indeed had indicated she wanted to die.
Seven years later, the Supreme Court confronted the right-to-die issue again in a pair of cases that challenged state laws criminalizing physician-assisted suicide. The court declined to declare a constitutional right to obtaining medication that would put the terminally ill to death, saying it was for states to decide.
In Schiavo's case, the high court has rejected four emergency requests from Schiavo's parents to keep her on a feeding tube after Florida state courts declined to do so. While the legal arguments varied, all have centered in part on what she would have wanted.
She did not leave a "living will" indicating her wishes. Her parents also say Michael Schiavo has a conflict of interest as his wife's legal guardian because he has a longtime girlfriend, with whom he has children.
"One big worry is that, obviously, she's not brain dead. But is she really in a 'persistent vegetative state'? If she isn't, no one should be deciding to cut her off," said Martha Field, a Harvard law professor. "We're also in a place where it's important to draw the line in consent because, realistically, it isn't Terri's choice, it's her husband's choice."
The Supreme Court has not always deferred automatically to states on the delicate question of life and death.
Last month, it agreed to hear the Bush administration's challenge to Oregon's unique law allowing doctors to help terminally ill patients die more quickly. At issue is whether the Justice Department can punish doctors who prescribe overdoses because physician-assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose."
It is unclear whether federal courts have authority to hear the Schiavo case after Congress, in hopes of sidestepping state rulings siding with Michael Schiavo, passed an extraordinary law last weekend allowing federal court review in Schiavo's case only.
Legal experts said while the law is unusual, it's not unprecedented. The Constitution authorizes Congress to create federal court jurisdiction, and lawmakers frequently pass legislation that benefits one person or one corporation, such as provisions in the tax code.
The legislation makes clear it establishes no precedent beyond the Schiavo case. Justices typically are loath to intervene for cases with narrow impact, although Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec argued the ramifications are much greater in this case.
"What Congress has said is, 'We can take that away from you. We can make the decision not yours, but that of a federal judge,'" Kmiec said. "That is a profound thing to say, and not just for the Schiavo case."
An emergency filing to the high court that seeks to reinsert Schiavo's feeding tube while the case is litigated would go first to Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee who oversees such appeals out of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Kennedy, who has staked a moderate position on social issues, would have the option to act on the petition alone, although on previous emergency requests involving Schiavo he has referred the matter to the full nine-member court.
Kennedy has gone native. He will be no help for Terri Schiavo.
One of the problems here is if Justice Kennedy reaches out to Uganda for his legal precedents. Their judges still rule on witchcraft charges.
Sorry.......when I reached this point I could not continue for this is a blatant LIE!!
Where are all the rabid terri supporters?
The American Government was designed as a tripod balanced on three legs, the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary. Each was to be a check and balance excess of the other.
The judiciary was to judge based on laws passed by the legislature and agreed to by the executive. Only if the law was contrary to the clear word of our Constitution was the law to be unconstitutional.
Today we have a judiciary running wild, unchecked and certainly unbalanced, a judiciary that can read elimination of religion; freedom to deprive human beings of life, in and out of the womb; elimination of the rights of self-defense and freedom of association into the Constitution that clearly does not say these things. A living document, that is what they call it. By that term they mean it says what they say it says, for they are judges, appointed for life.
The time has come for balance in our government. The time has come for judges who can read, not divine meaning with a scale in their hand. We have no need for judges to make laws, they are to judge based on written law, not give law.
I fear that many already see the writing on the wall..
The sanctity of life is not an 'issue' likely to come before the SCOTUS, but they have no problem allowing babies to be aborted on demand.
That Convicted inmates have more rights to make appeals than loved ones families or to have any hope for successes says a lot of how far our society has been dumbed down and subourned by the left and a Culture of Death.
It may well take the death of Terri to finally cause enough folks to finally seek to address the Judicial Tyranny and Death Cult so many have embraced as their best hope to control this nation's destiny.
WHY are people still calling this a "right to die" case? Call it what it is...a "right to kill the innocent" case.
I think that there is a religious aspect to this case that is not being covered. Reading between the lines makes me think that the Shiavos are Roman Catholic and that Terri was too. So, they argue, she would not have expressed a wish that was against church teachings. It is curious and telling that we hear from lawyers and journalists but no religious or ethical leaders.
Well, honey, you don't seem to realize that this isn't in the federal realm now to decide a family-law issue.
It's about time to recognize that this isn't about the impropriety of spousal rights, legal guardianship or power of attorney. This is about judicial activism that favors one party over the other on grounds other than the merits of the case, existing law and core principles that underlie all law in this land, that is, our sovereign rights as individual human beings.
The Constitutional "scholars" who have been arguing that "due process has been done over and over again" fail to recognize, whether by ignorance or intent matters not, that due process is not applied merely by going through the motions of procedure but must be manifested with the spirit of impartiality and observed by following the intent of the letter of the law not just its course.
That is why Section 1 of Amendment XIV closes with a conditional statement concerning equal application of the law. It indicates, in fact mandates, that due process must be applied without prejudice or the entire process fails Constitutional muster.
...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The honored legal standing of a spouse's power of attorney should not be in question here and I don't believe it has been. I would not support Congress, the President or anyone else who challenges its traditional standing.
It is time now, however, to actively answer the question raised in this case; "has Judge Greer elevated spousal right of attorney to an absolute that exceeds the individual inalienable right to life?" which is stretching that right beyond tradition or reason. The tradition I speak of is the American tradition embodied in the DoI, "we hold these truths to be self-evident", that life and liberty are the most honored rights of all. In fact they are held as sacrosanct.
If the Dems want to invoke more medieval or Mideastern traditions of spousal rights like bigamy, beating and the right to buy or sell a wife they are welcome to. That's probably not quite as repugnant as infanticide.
Let us also remember that the Jews were duly processed in Hitler's Germany. They rarely failed to follow procedure to the letter.
ping
"The Supreme Court ruled 15 years ago that a terminally ill patient has a constitutional right to decline medical treatment. But it also said that right was not absolute, holding that a state may impose a high legal burden on a family to show a patient had actually consented.
She did not leave a "living will" indicating her wishes. Her parents also say Michael Schiavo has a conflict of interest as his wife's legal guardian because he has a longtime girlfriend, with whom he has children.
"One big worry is that, obviously, she's not brain dead. But is she really in a 'persistent vegetative state'? If she isn't, no one should be deciding to cut her off," said Martha Field, a Harvard law professor. "We're also in a place where it's important to draw the line in consent because, realistically, it isn't Terri's choice, it's her husband's choice."
The Supreme Court has not always deferred automatically to states on the delicate question of life and death.
"Where are all the rabid terri supporters?"
HERE! and see my post 14, with some important excerpts from the article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.