A Deadly Power Struggle
It has been my feeling for weeks that the courts had no intention of reversing the early decision to remove Schiavo's tube for political reasons. They seemed bound and determined not to be pushed around by Jeb Bush, Congress, or the President. Even if they wanted to alter the ruling, they would show no signs of weakness towards the other two branches of government. It is not due process, it's personal.Checks and balances be cursed, the courts must be prepotent, even with such high stakes.
Here is an excellent post by Captain Ed regarding the comments made by Justice Stanley Birch of the 11th Circuit.
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 3/31/2005 01:40:00 AM
|
6 Comments:
was it not made personal when the ehtically challenged Tom Delay called Judge Greer a murderer and a terrorist from the house floor?
interesting that Stanley Birch is a committed conservative justice appointed by the first president Bush (some Conservatives have thought he would make a good Supreme Court Justice). He is not an out of conrtol judicial activist, but a conservative judge who considers the activism of the president and congress a threat to the seperation fo powers. While I may disagree with him, it is not as has been posted.
They are fighting for checks and balances, not cursing checks and balances, from my reading of the brief.
We may disagree but there is no need to vilify all judges and the entire judicial system.
Perhaps we do disagree, which is fine. However, pointing out the circumstances in this case is not villifying all judges nor the entire judicial system. I'm talking about a specific circumstance. You took a step forward that I didn't take. You also took a step I didn't take in making this a partisan, liberal/conservative issue. In my opinion, this was a struggle of power between branches of government, especially since there were liberals and conservatives that voted for the bill...I think it is a stretch to claim this was a fight for checks and balances when the judiciary completely disregarded the actions of the other two branches of government that attempted to make sure that the entire process was reviewed accurately which is absolutely within their rights and their responsibility.
One thing that I've wondered in all of this is if there was ever a jury at any stage. This wasn't a criminal case (or at least it didn't start out that way), but civil cases have juries, and the jury (by our Constitution) is our ultimate protection against excesses by all three branches of government (not that any of these three will readily admit it, of course). David, you're right that this was a battle over turf; unfortunately the wrong "armies" were in the field.
I have been trying to explain, ever since Terri's case became prominent, that this is a case of judicial discretion gone amuck. It is simply a lie that 19 judges "decided" this matter. One judge did and totally refused to reconsider his decision. His mind was made up, and he brushed aside inconvenient facts
All of the appeal courts appear to have done is to simply look at procedural nicities. Since those were tidy the facts of this case didn't matter. The Appeal Courts do not usually have the power to "retry" the case, but they probably could have referred the matter to another lower Court judge and given clear instructions that a formal and complete rehearing was called for
Congress attempted to get this done by federal legislation. But they too were "given the finger" by the Courts.
Some critics have indicated that Congress should never interfere with state courts. Does this mean that all of the Federal Civil Rights legistration is ultra vires.
I checked Article 3 of the Constitution. Congress has jurisdiction over Courts The Palm Sunday statute is prescriptive--Courts "shall" review the matter. The Federal Courts took a pass.
I don't practise in Florida, thank goodness, but here (in Ontario) a Court of Appeal could order a new trial or hearing, and I suspect that the Florida legislative framework provides for this too. However, review is probably a matter for judicial discretion. If Judges are unwilling, purchased, or deaf, justice is not done at all.
What we have here is a judiciary more interested in its own "safety" and prestige rather than looking at the facts of this particular case and seeking the most sensible alternative for a handicapped and totally helpless woman.
Forced starvation has happened here before. Terri's "hospice" had developed a protocol for dealing with it. There have been a great many Terri's.
There is probably a case to be made that a feeding tube should not have been used at all. But after it was in place, removal is simply murder.
The forced starvation of a brain damaged person is simply wrong even if her whole family agrees.
Here they did not, and the Guardian, her husband in name only had substantial conflicts of interest. None of these seemd to matter.
The matter was not complicated. A "humane solution" giving Terri's care back to her parent and siblings was obvious to everyone. The judge chose to ignore this possibility.
May God have mercy on us all.
Thanks for commenting back.
I am sorry you misunderstood my comments and took umbrage at a dissenting opinion.
I would have loved to have hear your take on the comments that Delay and his ilk have made and how this is not a personal attack upon the judiciary.
I am sorry that you felt that I took it to another level by letting you know of the political stipes of Birch. I was not turning it into a political battle by mentioning this. Since my mention, I have read in countless articles the same thing regarding Greer and Birch's political background. I think it is relevant in that it complicates matters. I actually thought it would have been of interest to you if you had not already know it.
Rick,
I didn't take offense at your comments nor do I believe I misunderstood them, I merely disagreed with them. I made no mention of any such "battle" or anything of the kind. I simply stated that you seemed to have twisted my words a little or misunderstood what I was saying. My comments were not of a partisan nature. If you wanted to go there in your comments, that's fine, but I think it should not be taken as an offense to your intellect or for you to take it personally for me to point out that's not what I originally had in mind. I was speaking of an isolated event and you said I was slamming the entire judiciary, which I never did.
I appreciate the information that you kindly presented, but I think you and I both know that you were doing more than just lettin' me know, which is fine, too. I have no problem with dissenting positions, but I would hope the person who dissents doesn't mind being provided an answer to their dissent...it happens in gentlemanly debates all the time.
I have no doubt that there are any number of problems with politicians on both sides of the aisle. I have no problem acknowledging that. You claim to be a centrist, but all I hear you commenting on is how bad the republicans are. Does it matter at all that Powerline Posted this today?
"The Washington Times reports that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi helped secure $3 million last year for a nonprofit organization, WestStart-CALSTART, whose president gave money to her political action committee. The organization also paid for the European trip of one of Pelosi's policy advisers. Republicans are suggesting that nothing distinguishes Pelosi's actions from those of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and other Republican members Pelosi has criticized."
I would love to hear you comment on Pelosi and her "ilks." Are both Pelosi and Delay wrong and ethically challenged? Probably. But then, all of us can be wrong every now and then...can't we?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home