Posted on 03/31/2005 3:11:22 PM PST by Crackingham
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on Thursday blamed Terri Schiavo's death on what he contended was a failed legal system and he raised the possibility of trying to impeach some of the federal judges in the case. "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," said DeLay, R-Texas.
But a leading Democratic senator said DeLay's comments were "irresponsible and reprehensible." Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said DeLay should make sure that people know he is not advocating violence against judges.
DeLay, the second-ranking House GOP lawmaker, helped lead congressional efforts 10 days ago to enact legislation designed to prod the federal courts into ordering the reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube. He said the courts' refusal to do just that was a "perfect example of an out of control judiciary."
Asked about the possibility of the House's bringing impeachment charges against judges in the Schiavo case, DeLay said, "There's plenty of time to look into that."
President Bush expressed sympathy to Schiavo's parents.
"I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others," he said.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to join DeLay in criticizing the courts. "We would have preferred a different decision from the courts ... but ultimately we have to follow our laws and abide by the courts," McClellan said.
Joining DeLay in taking issue with the judiciary was Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who said, "The actions on the part of the Florida court and the U.S. Supreme Court are unconscionable." Also, GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina said the case "saw a state judge completely ignore a congressional committees subpoena and insult its intent" and "a federal court not only reject, but deride the very law that Congress passed."
DeLay said he would make sure that the GOP-controlled House "will look at an arrogant and out of control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president."
Thank you for that link. I will investigate. It is hard to make out any truth in all the allegations surrounding this tragic story.
As I understand it, that was not the time or place for presenting evidence but simply a request to step back and look at everything anew. During that extension evidence not previously considered, evidence presented but ignored, and new evidence would be presented and reviewed. This would have cleared up all the confusion and eliminated conversations like this. To deny that seems unreasonable to me.
Congress has the control to define purview and even set terms of federal judges including the supreme Court. The fact they originally defined terms as "until death" notwithstanding, they can change that at any time they want as well.
But it was not presented. Instead, the Schindler's attorney regurgitated the complaints against Greer's handling of the case in state courts.
The judge can only deal with what the attorney puts in front of him. It's not his job to pry the information out of a clueless barrister.
You make a good point and present an interesting dilemma. Congress clearly directed that the federal courts should hold a de novo hearing without regard to the State Court determinations. There simply is no way to effectuate that direction under these circumstances without granting a stay and ordering the feeding tube back. As the dissent in the 11th Circuit pointed out, the courts could have used the All Writs Act to keep Schiavo alive to have a reasoned hearing and review of the case. Your point about unchanged law and rules regarding injunction motions is valid. However, the judiciary frustrated rather obvious congressional intent when it could have just as easily implemented it. There would have been a lot of value in the airing of the serious constitutional issues and defining the boundaries between the three branches. Now all we are left with are hot rhetorical statements from the courts and a moot statute. I continue to believe that there is a much larger governmental issue here than fine legal arguments and rhetorical flushes. This is simply another in a long line of recent instances where the judiciary has declared itself superior to Congress.
By the way, the basis for the statement that the courts told Congress to pound sand is the intemperate opinion of Judge Birch.
Either I didn't make myself clear or you skimmed too quickly. I said in the first sentence:
As I understand it, that was not the time or place for presenting evidence but simply a request to step back and look at everything anew.
After that was granted, as was expected and should have been:
evidence not previously considered, evidence presented but ignored, and new evidence would be presented and reviewed.
Considering the stakes, that seems a perfectly reasonable request and expectation.
I don't think the point is that Judge Whittemore should have necessarilly overturned the ruling so much as he should have actually retried the case from the very beginning. I'll copy something from Thomas Sowell's 3/25 article:
"What the law just passed by Congress did was authorize a federal court to go back to square one and examine the actual merits of the Terri Schiavo case, not simply review whether the previous judge behaved illegally. Congress authorized the federal courts to retry this case from scratch -- "de novo" as the legislation says in legal terminology.
"That is precisely what the federal courts have refused to do. There is no way that federal District Judge James Whittemore could have examined this complex case, with its contending legal arguments and conflicting experts, from scratch in a couple of days, even if he had worked around the clock without eating or sleeping.
"Judge Whittemore ignored the clear meaning of the law passed by Congress and rubberstamped the decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.
"Nor could the judges on the Court of Appeals have gone through all of this material "de novo" in a couple of days after Judge Whittemore's decision. They have added to the number of judges that liberals can count but they have not followed the law -- which is what really counts.
"The federal judges have rushed to judgment -- in a case where there was no rush legally, despite a medical urgency. Terri Schiavo was not dying from anything other than a lack of food and water. These federal judges could have ordered the feeding tube restored while they gave this issue the thorough examination authorized -- and indeed prescribed -- by the recent Congressional legislation.
"As dissenting Judge Charles Wilson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals put it, the "entire purpose of the statute" is to let federal courts look at the case "with a fresh pair of eyes." But, by the Circuit Court's decision, "we virtually guarantee" that the merits of the case "will never be litigated in a federal court" because Terri Schiavo will be dead. Never -- regardless of how many judges are counted as talking points."
I was reading my home pocket dictionary. I now understand its no good when it comes to law language. :-)
Who was fronting his money and what was their objective?
Your first post saying that right-wing religious conservative radical fundamentalist Christians (let me know if I left any out) were not in favor of the "nuclear option" left me all confuzzled. Especially, as the first thing I did upon hearing of the death of Terri was to call my two senators and get their stance on the "nuclear option" and affirm my support of them should they choose to take it.
Now, of course, you are saying that it's the religious right's nuttiness that has scared off the moderates. Can't have it both ways, Grand Poohbah. I don't expect this to prohibit you from trying. Carry on apace.
They better take action.
And the White House continues to cower. Shameful.
I think you will like this post here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1375028/posts?page=35#35
I won't deny the difficulty, but neither would I have imagined the Congress in spite of polling actually move Jurisdiction of the Schiavo case two weeks ago. That was a big step. It could have gone further, and certainly the Judiciary chose to thumb their noses, but to dismiss that would be to miss an important moment.
For the first time in my living memory our Congress asserted its Constitutional Right over the Judiciary. For the First time they faced public scorn, and for the right reason. That needs to be applauded. It needs to be encouraged.
We can't turn back events since Jefferson and expect the righting of the balance of powers over night. It can happen eventually if we want it badly enough, nor will it take a majority in agreement to make it happen. A majority didn't overthrow England. A majority were not happy about the end of slavery.
If anything I'm more committed to supporting our representatives to take the next step to further assert their rights after the latest events. More committed to educating the public. It'll be an unpopular domestic war, but I'm not conceding defeat.
I mean: For instance: Take the word "stream". I know some coal industry lawyers who, after four decades of arguing in one case or another in one Court or another, still can't figure out what a "stream" is! [tsk!]
Don't let on that I told you so, Spunky; but, in my opinion, some lawyers spend wa-a-ay too many hours on the upper-floor of that glass-enclosed, high-rise office building of theirs!
Have a nice day! ;-}
Thank you.
The Constitution gives Congress power over federal courts other than the Supreme Court..in Article 1, Section 8, "to constitute
ytribunals inferior to the Supreme Court."
Perhaps.
I'm not really a member of what is termed the Christian Right, but I am a Christian. Basically I'm a conservative on most fronts. Economic, social, foreign policy, the whole deal. Within reason.
Ex. I believe in state rights but I'm not an absolutist. If I were, Lincoln wouldn't be my number one preference as President.
I'd rather the government let me hold my money to do as I please than take it for S.S., but I'd be temporaily content with a small portion to invest privately as I feel its a step toward less dependance on government.
I'm a strong supporter of the President's foreign policy though I've had some disagreement over a palestianian State and Taiwan (though they've recently made some moves I'm in favor of concerning the latter).
I was a social conservative before I became a Christian, though Faith has deepened that committment.
I generally get ticked off at any one constituency of the base devaluing another. I've always felt our goals tended to compliment each other more than not. Same is the case here if they were capable of viewing the big picture.
I also have a habit to defend the underdog if I believe they are being wronged. And right now I see the underdogs as Terri (and family), the Republicans, and the pro-life/Christians.
The last has raised my temper specifically since there is an inherant bigotry I'm sensing to people of Faith. The same people that helped the Reps become a Majority Power that could start to deliver on these other single issues that inspire the rest of the base, are now subject to ridicule? Certainly it's nothing new but I refuse to stand by and allow this to continue without two cents thrown in. While not only christians are supporting Terri, the fact remains those that are have taken a stand for Life. Heck of a lot more valauble than whether we get more tax breaks.
The problem is with them. Not those that recognize the value of Life as being more important tham power, money or prestige.
That one can go with my blessing.
I agree judges will not solve a thing. Too many become corrupt by the absolute power they've discovered they hold. The real solution is to right the balance of powers, and that will take acts of Congress as well as us educating the public about the Constitution since public education no longer does.
I agree on the rest. The President acts on principle, so do Christians. We have a similiar goals so we support each other even when in disagreement, as those goals match more than not. This is how it works in politics and nothing to be apolgetic about.
IF YOU INVESTIGATE YOU HAVE OUR SUPPORT
Question:Terri's hospice care was, I understand, paid by Medicare. Admission to a hospice, Iunderstand, is to be signed by two doctors affirming that the patient has no more than 6 months to live. If this is true, can Federal Medicare investigators take charge and begin a thorough review of all medicare related records? It would be interesting to see what they might find.
I think you are right.
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.