Posted on 04/01/2005 2:35:52 PM PST by JohnHuang2
Why did Terri Schiavo die? The answer seems easy enough.
The actual answer is because her "husband" requested a court to let him starve her, and the court gave him permission to. It is the first example of judicially granted, state-sanctioned homicide in American history.
But Michael Schiavo and Judge George Greer were not alone in their willingness to put personal agendas above an innocent woman's constitutional rights to life and liberty.
In a match of "manhood," the rhetorical war between the legislative branch and the judicial branch of the federal government – as much as any of the other factors – ushered in Terri's unnecessary demise.
So many pundits have written about judicial tyranny, we've just about gone cross-eyed in the process. Yet despite the disgruntled rumblings about activist judges, the will of the American people has not arisen to the degree that they have been willing to fight back.
Knowing this, the "all-knowing ones" in black robes have taken it as their cue to be able to create legislation, ignore Congress and, in the process, thwart the welfare of the American electorate. All the while knowing they have no one to answer to for the deeds they engage in.
Terri's case was a stunning example of this.
Congress came into emergency session two days into Terri's state-mandated starvation-dehydration. Congress – in a large bipartisan way in the Senate as well as a sometimes cantankerous bipartisan session in the House of Representatives – passed a bill that the president signed into law, mandating that the federal courts open up a de novo case in the matter of Terri's condition.
This meant a new beginning to the case. It meant a re-establishment of the facts of the case. It meant the re-evaluation of witnesses. And it was all for no other purpose than to be absolutely sure of Terri's defined abilities and prognosis. It would also re-examine the claims and evidence for Terri's "no tubes for me wishes." It would do so under the more rigorous federal standards of evidence and hearsay would not have been allowed.
Given that outcome, it would have provided a chance for Terri to have her own representation in a proceeding where her life could be ended via a death sentence.
The language was clear. The statute was unambiguous. And when it came to the federal black robes ... it went completely ignored.
The statute was not challenged for its constitutional grounds and, as such, was established law. The court's duty is to follow the instruction of the law. But after the judges in Terri's case had ignored congressional subpoenas, they felt right at home in thumbing their noses at "We the People," and continued on by ignoring federal law.
In Terri's 11th-hour appeal, in the case's final visit to the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta, Judge Stanley Birch Jr. wrote these words in the court's refusal to hear the case on the grounds of the lower court's purposeful ignoring of the federal law.
[Lawmakers] have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Father's blueprint for the governance of a free people – our Constitution.
In other words, because we don't like this law, and we don't like this case, we don't have to take it.
The law governing the matter had not been found unconstitutional by any court. It is even now a federal provision that has yet to be followed.
But it is increasingly clear that to these judges Terri's plight was doomed from the outset over jurisdictional jealousy and spite for a legislative branch instructing the court on what to do.
Of course that is exactly their job.
Did Terri die on Thursday because of evil legal allowances for Michael Schiavo by Judge George Greer? Yes ... but also because justices at three levels of federal courts sat on their hands and told those who represent "We the People" to climb a tree.
And in our system of government – which was designed to house three equal levels of governance – the executive and legislative branches are now the whipping boys of the bullies in black robes.
Kevin McCullough is heard daily from 1 to 4 p.m. EST in New York City on AM 570 WMCA, and in New Jersey on AM 970 WWDJ. Additionally, you can read his daily postings at The KMC Blog. For information on how to bring "The Kevin McCullough Show" to a station near you, call Dave Armstrong at 201-298-5700.
I like it. Thanks John.
I wonder if Kevin would be upset if a written will had indicated Terri wanted to be killed in this way, under these conditions. I would have been. Euthanasia is as evil as abortion.
Bump
Euthanasia is only one of the many subordinant-issues in this case. For me; the principle issue is whether a civil court, through a civil process, can strip a person of all legal substance and reduce them to chatel. I don't know if I would be so opposed, were the victim a conscious person, making an informed decision over their own life. Especially were it to have been a terminally ill patient suffering in great pain.
You are pro-euthanasia? A honest question. I've chatted with various FReepers who are pro-euthanasia.
Good article.
Not having read the entire article yet, but you may want to check the CRUZAN case. THis was also a court-sanctioned starvation/dehydration death.
Mullahs in black robes. The should change the name "opinion" to fatwa.
For me, denying food and water to someone is euthanasia. California law allows for the same type of euthanasia as the Florida laws used to kill Terri.
Someone tell Kevin his barber is made at him. I'm pretty sure he doesn't know.
He'll never get help if I can't spell.
In your opinion, what Rights claim(s) should have Gibbs made to Whittenmore that would not have conflicted with CRUZAN?
I'm of the opinion that it wouldn't have mattered what claim was made. Cruzan's proposition is that a state legislature CAN require clear and convincing evidence of an incapacitated patient's wishes before denying the patient ordinary care that will result in death. Flordia law requires clear and convincing evidence for the same thing.
The Cruzan case was a sort of "opposite" to Schiavo. In Cruzan, the petitioner (Cruzan's parents) wanted to stop feeding their daughter (using, of course, the argument that this is what the daughter wanted), and argued that the evidentiary burden of "clea and convincing" was TOO HIGH, and thereby denied the daughter her right to "self-determine" her fate.
In the Schiavp case, Congress meant to cause a fresh review of the facts to determine whether or not the evidence (mostly of the patient's wishes) was sufficient to support the court order. That question, now, as a matter of judicial made law in the 11th Circuit, remains reserved to the state courts.
Kevin got it right!!
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
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.