« The Family That Bakes Together... | Main | Greatest R&R Songwriters: guest posting [updated] »

How Many Rings Can One Circus Have?

Gov. Bush Requests Custody of Schiavo After Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case

Damn the courts, full speed ahead. We have an agenda to protect!

See, Andy.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How Many Rings Can One Circus Have?:

» The Final Word? Not. from Inblognito
Updated. The Supreme Court has just refused to interfere in the Schiavo case, for the fifth time. The whole thing, part and parcel, goes back to Florida, where Jeb Bush has promised to do "everything in his power" to keep... [Read More]

» That's "Mrs. Suburbanite Democrat Housewife", to you! from Shutterblog
http://www.shutterblog.com/exposed/negative/justice_supreme_thumb.jpg [Read More]

Comments

To give full benefit of doubt, he's trying to save a life. Perhaps he's going to far for "just" one life.

If you're unwilling to give benefit of doubt then posting about it at all is waste of your and our time and 20 comments from now you'll post something wounded and defensive regretting mentioning it.

The circus continues.

Here's an idea, Matt. If you find a blog and its posts to be a wast of your time, try not reading it, k? Don't waste my space, I won't waste your time. Works out for everyone.

OMG, I just noticed the title of your entry. Did you just change it to circus, or was I completely oblivious the first time around? But that's the only word I can think of to describe this macabre carnival of idiocy. If I there was this much publicity surrounding me, I'd want to die out of frustration - even if I wasn't brain dead.

I agree with the circus comment...the Florida courts have looked at this again and again...which is the legal process setup for dealing with this when the family does not agree...it should end there.

Here's an idea, Matt. If you find a blog and its posts to be a wast of your time, try not reading it, k? Don't waste my space, I won't waste your time. Works out for everyone.

Good advice, Michele. I think I'll take it too.

"Damn the courts, full speed ahead. We have an agenda to protect!"

hate to tell you, but this doesn't apply to just the Shaivo case, as far as the Bush family is concerned.

If your feds put this much effort into finding WMD's in Iraq, things may be different.

Or probably not.

The Bush family (and Rumsfeld, Rice and others) are putting thousands of people on feeding tubes and respirators in Iraqi at this very moment. They should be more concerned with that than with this. Oh wait, I forgot, they just let the soldiers, civilians and insurgents die over there.

On a more patriot note...giving up a Legal Guardians rights to the State will ultimately bring us to serious consequences to our future rights...darn, I keep forgetting...our rights are nearly gone as it is.

Vince,

HAHAHAHAHA! ROFL LMFAO!!!

Thanks I needed that ;)

Stop having opinions, Michele. It's too distressing to people to be forced to read a viewpoint that doesn't agree with theirs. What are you trying to do, ya Commie? Rock the boat?

Crap. Now I got that stupid disco song stuck in my head, and it's ALL YOUR FAULT!

"I agree with the circus comment...the Florida courts have looked at this again and again...which is the legal process setup for dealing with this when the family does not agree..."

Well, not completely. The Florida Department of Children and Families routinely takes disabled and incapacitated adults into temporary legal custody. My only question is why they've waited years to do so. It's all about letting the process work except when you disagree with it, isn't it?

So, I'm told we have three equal branches of government in this country. Is one, the judiciary, more equal than the others?

Waitaminnit! Last I heard (5:30-ish last night), Ol' Jeb wanted to take state custody of Terri, but the courts barred that from happening. Has that changed?

Wouldn't it be beautiful if Terri Schiavo's death was not in vain? Wouldn't it be an honor to her memory if this circus surrounding her death was what woke America to the true nature of BushCo and it was the beginning of their end?

Well, this thread has brought out new and interesting people.

A lot of tu quoque that doesn't speak to the matter at hand, for one thing.

If you believe that Terri Schiavo is still "alive" (sorry about the scare quotes, but people define it differently, so I'm just trying to avoid that debate) and/or have problems trusting Michael Schiavo's representations regarding what her wishes would have been, it's about the government protecting her rights as an individual.

If you don't feel that Terri is "alive" and/or you feel that Michael Schiavo's representations regarding Terri's wishes are accurate, then the government (federal, state, legislative, judicial, whatever) shouldn't interfere.

I don't think it's helpful to just say "I thought you weren't in favor of big government" or "I thought you favored states' rights" or "I thought you believed in the government protecting the weakest among us" since that isn't what's driving people's decision-making here.

For example, if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, I would expect pro-choice people to protest, and I don't think my saying "hey, I thought you liked the federal judiciary ruling on this stuff" would really address their argument.

In both cases, everything flows from different perspectives on how you view "life," regardless of whether you're an opponent or proponent of federalism.

everything flows from different perspectives on how you view "life," regardless of whether you're an opponent or proponent of federalism.

Or how about if you believe that individuals have the right to control their own medical treatment even after they're incapacitated, and that in the event of dispute between family members, a state judicial proceeding, impartially administered, is a good way to determine what the patient would have wanted to do under the circumstances. And once the court has determined (by clear and convincing evidence) what the patient would have wanted, it is reasonable to allow such course of action to conclude, without interference from other branches of government or other governments. And the mere fact that some family members are willing to "choose life" is not enough to trump the preferences of the patient, even if such preferences are determined by a court, rather than a written advance directive.

That, it seems to me, is the real danger here. The facts are messy, and neither the Schindlers nor Michael Schiavo come with unclean hands, but we shouldn't allow emotion to create bad law. I suspect that a sizable percentage of the Save Terri! crowd would conclude that her parents should be allowed to keep her alive even if she had written a living will fifteen years ago (what if medicine has changed? what if she would have changed her mind? what if? what if? what if?). To embrace the so-called culture of life through political grandstanding such that a single family member can keep such a patient "alive" indefinitely even if the patient would not have wanted it will cause a whole hell of a lot more victims than sitting this one out would have.

Whew. I think I'm done. More here.

Or how about if you believe that individuals have the right to control their own medical treatment even after they're incapacitated, and that in the event of dispute between family members, a state judicial proceeding, impartially administered, is a good way to determine what the patient would have wanted to do under the circumstances.

This again flows from what I tried to say, albeit incompletely, in my post.

If someone doesn't believe that it's possible for the court to ascertain what she would have wanted, then they're going to feel differently about this. Have you ever disagreed with the results of the "impartial" judicial process? People of all political stripes protest court decisions all the time, don't they?

If she had left a living will, I couldn't imagine having any confusion about this issue.

Please understand, I'm not even trying to debate who is right or wrong. I'm just trying to explain how people can take either side in this without being either hypocritical or nuts.

Damn the courts?

But, er, aren't the courts being respected, in that their decisions are not being ignored, and the courts ARE deciding whether to allow or deny each request?

I mean, I agree in a sense that it's circus-like to keep trying like this when denial is almost certain, but I don't see any attack on the judicial branch goin' on.

Karim: I think you'll find that soldiers wounded in Iraq get excellent medical care. Civilians, not so sure about, but I do recall that our surgeons and medical facilities do operate on civilians in need of life-saving care, especially if they were wounded in a US combat action. Heck, even terrorists get medical care if they don't simply die of being shot to ribbons.

Of course, I wouldn't compare someone beign shot to ribbons for being a terrorist, doing terrorist actions, or an innocent person caught up in a crossfire or mistake to someone - at worst; at best their unoccupied body - being starved to death by court order.

Seems to me there's some sort of important difference there. But that must be just me. But, hey, any excuse to complain about The Man, right?

Sigivald,

I think you misunderstood the reference.

Michele is referring to the statement "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" by some Captain or other (or Admiral).

In this case, "Damn" means "Ignore".

And Michele was being sarcastic besides that ....

Forget Terri, I just want whoever keeps writing news stories about this to die. This is exactly like abortion - everyone's mind is made up, arguing about it solves nothing, and continuing to drag it out is just going to hurt peoples' feelings.

Actually...we have damned the courts. The Schiavo case has already been rejected by the SCOTUS (before today) a number of times.

The actions by Congress and Bush over the weekend also seem to weaken written living wills. After all, two courts definitively determined Terri's wishes. If a living will is in dispute, it has to be determined in a court as well. A precedent was set to overlook that and make a law forcing federal courts look at the issue (again).
For those trying to reinsert the feeding tube this isn't about the life of Terri Schiavo. Tom DeLay proved that when he went in front of the Family Research Council and declared that Terri Schiavo is a gift from God to the prolife movement...to put a spotlight on what they want.

This is about naked political aggression, plain and simple.

Carla--two courts have not determined Terri's wishes. They've accepted her husband's statements of her wishes. You can agree with that or not, but those things are not the same.

Ian S.--as for me, my mind has changed twice. Last Thursday, when I heard that Terri has never had an MRI or PET scan, I decided maybe something was going on here, and I should pay attention. So I did, and I think a terrible wrong is happening.

The second change is that I am now ready to support a Right to Life amendment. Mind you, I have always supported abortion rights in the past; it actually determined my vote, up until last November.

If I have to give that up to prevent another miscarriage of justice like this, then that is what I will do.

As much as my stomach churns about this, if we are to stand by the Judicial Branch, then she dies by starvation.

My problem now is that Congress passed a bill and the President signed it. That makes it law regardless of the Constitutionality of the law. It's the Law until Scalia gets hold of it. Judge Whittemore IGNORED the "De Novo" part of the law. While everyone has been focusing on the "Right to life" or "Right to die" debates another issue is slipping past folks which is another example of the runaway judiciary.

It's a huge ugly mess and I can't figure out who to really trust here. What has me completely perplexed are all these people coming out of the woodwork filing affidavits claiming all manner of interaction with Terri. I about half expect someone to come out and say she beat them in Chess last week!

Bostonian -

I think we'll something along those lines in the next Congressional session. But I'm not holding my breath for a comprehensive "Right To Life" law. It is going to take someone with a HUGE pair of brass balls to challenge Roe V Wade. I think the law will focus more on solidifying a position of supporting LIFE in situations where someone is incapacitated and there is no written living will, DNR, or other document stating their personal wishes.

"Michele is referring to the statement 'Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead' by some Captain or other (or Admiral)."

That would be Admiral David Glasgow Farragut, at Mobile Bay during the Civil War. He remains the longest-serving officer in the history of the US Navy, having been commissioned in the field at the age of eleven to take command of a British prize ship captured in the War of 1812.

"A precedent was set to overlook that and make a law forcing federal courts look at the issue (again)."

Can anyone please tell me why exactly having a federal court examine whether federal gurantees of due process were upheld in a state proceeding here is somehow more intrusive or a worse precedent that is their hearing the hundreds of habeas corpus petitions they get from state criminal convicts every day?

"My problem now is that Congress passed a bill and the President signed it. That makes it law regardless of the Constitutionality of the law. It's the Law until Scalia gets hold of it."

No, any court can find a statute unconstitutional, not just the US Supreme Court. However, neither the federal district court nor the 11th Circuit did so, even though they were almost certainly presented with the opportunity to in Michael Schiavo's pleadings. While that would have been erroneous, at least it would've been an open confrontation between the courts and the political branches, rather than a cowardly pretense that the statute means something other than what it says.

"Judge Whittemore IGNORED the "De Novo" part of the law."

Yes, exactly. Instead, he thought it best to defer to his former Pinellas Circuit Court colleague Judge Greer to an extent that completely flies in the face of Congress's clear legislative intent.

Dave -

If a Federal statute is declared to be unconstitutional doesn't it immediately go to SCOTUS? Not a snippy question...I'm sincere here. I'm no lawyer...haven't even played one on TV.

No, Wayne. There are very few situations where the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is mandatory rather than discretionary. They only hear about 100 cases a year on the merits, you know. Whether state or federal, the lower appellate courts almost always have the last word.