NationStates Jolt Archive

First, let me say that this is not to be a discussion of whether she should be kept alive or be let rest.

if you want to discuss the case itself, go here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=407078

having said that, i will look beyond the relatively insignificant case itself, and look at the long term effects this is going to have on the country.

1) Republicans are beginning to sway in favor of universal health care.

at least, that's the impression given by quotes like this:

The measure of a nation's commitment to the sanctity of life is reflected in its laws and to the extent those laws honor and defend its most vulnerable citizens

2) Balance of powers is in question

As you all know, the Legislative Branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws and the judicial branch interprets the laws.

at the moment, the judicial branch has determined that the laws place the care and responsability of Terry entirely in Mr. schiave's hands, in all matters, including the decision to pull the plug.

so now we see that the legislative branch does not like the court's decision and is doing its best to curb the power of the court.

2A) if Mr. schiavo comes out on top, the balance of powers has been restored

2B) if the parents of terry win, the power of judicial branch has been effectively negated.

in the event that terry's parents win the case, it will set a precedent that allows elected officials to second-guess the courts, thus eliminating the power that they had.

3) Republicans are now in favor of big federal government and smaller state governments

civil disputes (as that between man and the in-laws is) are squarely in the realm of state jurisdiction. By bringing the federal government into state affairs, the republicans have effectively gone against everything they have been pushing since the early nineties.

apparently, big federal government is only a bad thing when it's not republican?

not to mention that this is waaaay closer to crossing into "government control of private affairs" than the republicans have ever dared to get



can anyone find any more long-term effects

please, keep the discussion civil.

i don't want to argue the case, i want to discuss some of the long term effects of the case.

if someone does try to argue for or against euthenasia, i encourage all of you to ignore them

There are two very bad effects I can see:

1) Federal government is now interfering in state's jurisdiction -- which seems to be unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment.

2) People who are considered too inconvenient to society: open season has now opened on you. First, the brain-damaged. The next, easy step: those with congenital defects. After all, their quality of life is impaired too. How much further to sufferers of certain diseases, the chronically homeless, et cetera?

Bad precedent, all around.

American politicians have foisted a shell game before the people. Whoever in in control of congress tends to favor federal rights over states rights, and the party out of power tends to favor the opposite. It is the nature of power and politics. The mask is now off and the people can see politicians for what they really are.

(How's that, I didn't even mention euthanasia! :) )

The Republican party has always acted like this, finnaly they're just using thier power for good instead of evil.

Terry Shievao never hurt anyone, if the parents are paying for it what should it matter is she's alive or dead? Doctors havn't found that she's a vegetable just yet anyway, not that they can get much info seeing as her dickhole of a husband won't let them near her. He's just an evil-evil bastard who we all need to teamup against for the greater good of mankind.

Republicans>The Sith.
Democrats>The Jedi.
Scott Peterson/Terry's husband>Those damn annoying clones.

And if there's one thing I hate more then mecha (I fucking hate mecha! >< ) it's clones! Get the assassin droids in the hundreds and lightsabers in-hand!!

.

2) People who are considered too inconvenient to society: open season has now opened on you. First, the brain-damaged. The next, easy step: those with congenital defects. After all, their quality of life is impaired too. How much further to sufferers of certain diseases, the chronically homeless, et cetera?


Whoa whoa, whoa, whoa, that’s a major extrapolation, dose a person not have a right to die, that woman is not a woman any more, just a living piece of meat to say killing here is akin to taking out the trash is a joke, it must be horrible for her apparently rationality minded husband to see what was his wife like that, and if there’s is anything left of her in then its a living death.

I can sense your trying to compare euthanasia to the nazi culls of the mid 30's, this is why living wills need to be made a legality so all this ethical mine field can be cleared up, everyone should be required to state in front of several witnesses what they would like to happen to them in cases like this.

I can sense your trying to compare euthanasia to the nazi culls of the mid 30's
He's not trying to compare euthanasia to the nazi culls, you're trying to compare the nazi culls to euthanasia.

What part of getting a lethal injection and dieing in three seconds over starving to death don't you get? I've seen retards understand concepts more indepth then that..

Her form of being killed is brutal and un-deserving. Serial killers and rapists die better then that, are you telling me Terry deserves to die worst then a rapist or a serial killer?

And don't trying dodging my question either. Answer me damnit, why should Terry have to die LIKE THAT?

oh no, it's degrading already.

people, try to see beyond terry. at most, terry will live for another decade. at the very least, another week.

the ramifications of this case will last for centuries.

after all, the judicial branch's right to call a law 'unconstitutional' stemmed from a court case in the 1820's. a man broke a law, the case went as high as the supreme court, and the supreme court had a look at the law and decided that the law was unfair. they called it unconstitutional, and from then on, that has been within their powers.

i want to know if universal health care (or at least greater approval of) and the power of the legislators to overrule the courts are going to be real ramifications of this case.

i don't want to hear anything about the case itself.

no more arguing about whether she should live or die.

that's not important here

1) (original post) The Republicans are NOT in support of Universal healthcare due to this decision. In another topic, some one poitned out a Texas law signed by now president Bush allowing a hospital to terminate a person's life support against teh family's wishes if the family cannot continue it. Also alot of the money trimmed out for the war budget effectively attacks much of the very small amonut of social programs as it is

2) (Katganistan) You, like some one else in this debate on another forum, are trying to liken this to the overzealous eugenics programs of the early 20th century. It is not that, it is a debate over whether or not some one has a right to end some one else's LIFE SUPPORT if they do not have a living will saying they would want that. How people can compare that to the forcible euthanasia of the eugenics era is beyond me

I don't think it's going to have any long term effect. The American public has the attention span of a squirrel.

I don't think it's going to have any long term effect. The American public has the attention span of a squirrel.
But the legal system echos like the Grand Canyon

1) (original post) The Republicans are NOT in support of Universal healthcare due to this decision. In another topic, some one poitned out a Texas law signed by now president Bush allowing a hospital to terminate a person's life support against teh family's wishes if the family cannot continue it. Also alot of the money trimmed out for the war budget effectively attacks much of the very small amonut of social programs as it is

i know perfectly well that they are not.

but if they are reacting this way to one woman, will they not do something for the other 35 million people who need help?

i never meant to say that the day after tomorrow, they would sign a universal healthcare bill, i'm just saying that pournig taxpayer money into this woman's healthcare is taking a huge leap forward to getting universal healthcare accomplished

oh no, it's degrading already.

I agree. Too many people want to argue the immediate effect, not the long-term effects.


people, try to see beyond terry. at most, terry will live for another decade. at the very least, another week.

the ramifications of this case will last for centuries.

after all, the judicial branch's right to call a law 'unconstitutional' stemmed from a court case in the 1820's. a man broke a law, the case went as high as the supreme court, and the supreme court had a look at the law and decided that the law was unfair. they called it unconstitutional, and from then on, that has been within their powers.

i want to know if universal health care (or at least greater approval of) and the power of the legislators to overrule the courts are going to be real ramifications of this case.


On both counts I don't think so. All the legislators did was to pass a law to submit this case to a federal court. As I believe it will go nowhere, they will realize it was ineffective at best and therefore not likely to try it again.

On the point of Universal Health Care, I don't think the Republicans are any closer to approving such at thing -- the budget being one reason and two being I don't think UHC would have let Terri last as long as she has. They would have pulled the plug years ago, if the European systems are any model for a precedent.

i never meant to say that the day after tomorrow, they would sign a universal healthcare bill, i'm just saying that pournig taxpayer money into this woman's healthcare is taking a huge leap forward to getting universal healthcare accomplished
Highly doubtful. They just want to look good to their pro-life constituents so they will all be re-elected and look like the saviors of humanity in the public eye while continuing to pass restrictive and abusive legislation against humanity.

look, if you want to argue the terry schivo case, go to the other thread.

i could not care what any of you think about that woman or her rights to live/die.

i want to know if the elected bodies are going to come out of this with the power to overrule my court cases.

i want to know if this will be the first step towards universal health care.

i want to know if this is the first step towards general acceptance of big federal government.

i do not want to know what you think about terry.

this thread is not about her

But the legal system echos like the Grand Canyon

Like my farts in the toilet.

It isn't an issue that has been grandly and widely and finally decided, like Roe. Or the SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

It's one case, and in one state, and even the last minute legislation is potentially unconstitutional - and only applicable to one case.

The US is rarely a "winner take all" system. It takes decades to get anything to really change around here.

Listening to Democrats cry about how much peril we're in from this sounds EXACTLY like Republicans crying about decisions made by the 9th Circuit.

peril, peril, peril
panic, panic, panic
nothing, nothing, nothing

It isn't an issue that has been grandly and widely and finally decided, like Roe. Or the SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
The parents have been allowed to sadly take this to the USSC

The parents have been allowed to sadly take this to the USSC
I don't think they'll hear it. I think it's essentially over at this point.

I also don't believe that she'll live long enough to have too much more discussion.

I don't think they'll hear it. I think it's essentially over at this point.

I also don't believe that she'll live long enough to have too much more discussion.
Granted, but I somehow wouldn't be surprised if Congress overruled the USSC and forced them to take the case.

In which case I hope the Supreme Court writes a long opinion telling people off.

I don't think they'll hear it. I think it's essentially over at this point.

I also don't believe that she'll live long enough to have too much more discussion.


finally, the answer to my question.

it sounds as if this case will lead nowhere (neither good nor bad)

pity, really.

Granted, but I somehow wouldn't be surprised if Congress overruled the USSC and forced them to take the case.

In which case I hope the Supreme Court writes a long opinion telling people off.

I don't think you could do that. The Court would just refuse again, and say the action was unconstitutional.

Now, Florida's legislature could pass some legislation to keep her alive, but that's been struck down before as well.

I don't think you could do that. The Court would just refuse again, and say the action was unconstitutional.

Now, Florida's legislature could pass some legislation to keep her alive, but that's been struck down before as well.
Actually, if I recall, the Congress has the right to prevent the Supreme Court hearing specific cases (I could be wrong) and I will assume it works the other way too considering what they just did (I could be wrong again)

Actually, if I recall, the Congress has the right to prevent the Supreme Court hearing specific cases (I could be wrong) and I will assume it works the other way too considering what they just did (I could be wrong again)

We should ask Cat-Tribe.

i want to know if the elected bodies are going to come out of this with the power to overrule my court cases.
My question to you is: Why shouldn't they? Arn't the president and congress a step above some lowly judge on the political ladder?

i want to know if this will be the first step towards universal health care.
Possibly, which would be a very good thing. Finnaly tax money well spent..

i want to know if this is the first step towards general acceptance of big federal government.
Maybe maybe not. Me and mom were just debating this a while ago over the moral degradition of our society. I told her our only alternative is to create a virutualy impiralist nation, because people are savages and unless motivated by fear they will only spiral deeper and deeper into thier own destruction. Mom disagrees, she believes people can be taught values and compassion but the goverment and everyone as a whole have not made it a point to yet..

this thread is not about her
Word of advise next-time then: Don't put her name in the title. ;)

Actually, if I recall, the Congress has the right to prevent the Supreme Court hearing specific cases (I could be wrong) and I will assume it works the other way too considering what they just did (I could be wrong again)


that certainly sounds like an odd power to have, if you have some kind of source for that, i'd be happy to read up on it.



btw, how exactly would congress force the supreme court to hear something?

if they really wanted to not hear it, they could refuse to rule on it. (not likely with this crowd, but hey, it could happen)

All the legislators did was to pass a law to submit this case to a federal court.

I find that they can do an end-run around previous judicial decisions by making a law about a specific case rather disturbing, since it's clearly trying to disrupt the checks and balances of the three branch system.

that certainly sounds like an odd power to have, if you have some kind of source for that, i'd be happy to read up on it.



btw, how exactly would congress force the supreme court to hear something?

if they really wanted to not hear it, they could refuse to rule on it. (not likely with this crowd, but hey, it could happen)
I would guess maybe Article 3 Section 2 Clause 2

My question to you is: Why shouldn't they? Arn't the president and congress a step above some lowly judge on the political ladder?

i certainly hope not.

if that were the case, then congress could pass whatever they wanted as a law. if the president agrees with it, it's up to the supreme court to strike down the law. considering that the justices are appointed for life, chances are that enough are there that had been appointed by presidents that do not agree with the law. (in this example, just use any law that you would not like to see passed)

plus, courts usually protect the minorities.

it prevents a tyranny of majority ( where 51% of the nation votes to remove the ights of the other 49%)


Possibly, which would be a very good thing. Finnaly tax money well spent..

couldn't agree more!



Word of advise next-time then: Don't put her name in the title. ;)


i'm already beginning to regret that

I would guess maybe Article 3 Section 2 Clause 2


ah, yes

that appears to be the case.

The off-topic material's been split off into its own thread. If you wish to edit the title of this thread to reflect its spirit better, let me know what title you would prefer.

i already edited the initial post to include a link to the new thread.

i can't really think of something that gets the point of the thread across without mentioning the case.

if you have something in mind, feel free.

I find that they can do an end-run around previous judicial decisions by making a law about a specific case rather disturbing, since it's clearly trying to disrupt the checks and balances of the three branch system.

While I think Congress is waiting their time, I don't see an end run at all. Just a law saying in effect, "Federal Courts, take a look at this case and see if there are any issues that need to be address by federal law."

I don't see anything so earthshaking from that. It would have been quite an overreach, if Congress has somehow circumvented the courts and passed a law that says, "Ignore all previous court rulings and reinsert the tube under penalty of death." That would have been very disturbing.

While I think Congress is waiting their time, I don't see an end run at all. Just a law saying in effect, "Federal Courts, take a look at this case and see if there are any issues that need to be address by federal law."

I don't see anything so earthshaking from that. It would have been quite an overreach, if Congress has somehow circumvented the courts and passed a law that says, "Ignore all previous court rulings and reinsert the tube under penalty of death." That would have been very disturbing.


but the fact that they set out on the specific purpose of circumventing the court's ruling is what disturbs me.

the state court ruled on a state decision that he had the right to remove the tube.

congress did not like the decision, so they rushed a law saying that the tube had to be replaced until a federal court had a look at the case.

considering that the case had already been rotting inside the state courts for nearly a decade, chances are she will die of some other cause by the time the federal court deals with it

congress did not like the decision, so they rushed a law saying that the tube had to be replaced until a federal court had a look at the case.


Congress did not pass a law saying the tube had to be reinserted! That is not what Congress did. They do not have that power and even they realized that the court would have to decide on the case and make a decision.

I think you have somewhat over-reacted to what really happened here.

Congress did not pass a law saying the tube had to be reinserted! That is not what Congress did. They do not have that power and even they realized that the court would have to decide on the case and make a decision.

I think you have somewhat over-reacted to what really happened here.


they didn't?

what am i thinking of, then?



oh, that's right.

one of them had the bright idea to call up the poor woman as a witness, so that she would be under the witness protection, and the tube would have to be replaced.

to the best of my knowledge, that decision was shot down by the state court anyway.

nevermind, proceed.

For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo .


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO .

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.

Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo , or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.

SEC. 3. RELIEF.

After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.

Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.

SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.

Nothing in this act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--

(1) to assisting suicide,

(2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.

SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.

Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.

SEC. 8. NO EFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.

Nothing in this act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990.

SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

It is the Sense of the Congress that the 109th Congress should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care.

The only reason Terri's Law is worrisome to me is that it does seem to me that it is an attempt to change the rules midstream and get, so to speak, unlimited "do-overs" to unpopular judicial decisions.

You can read for yourself, how limited the legislation was actually written. It was a very special law that applied to only one family's case.

Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo , or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life

let me get this straight:

they gave permission to the parents to file suit against anyone involved in the decision to remove the tube?

that certainly falls under the category of 'circumnavigating the court's verdict'

You can read for yourself, how limited the legislation was actually written. It was a very special law that applied to only one family's case.

True -- but what is to stop Congress from rushing more laws in that apply in very narrowly defined cases?

The phrase you highlighted allowed the party (I.E. Michael Schiavo) to be circumvented by a higher court if the higher (in this case Federal) court so decides. The parties in conflict are the parents vs. the husband.

Nothing in the language of the bill forced the Federal courts to decide any particular way. That is still the discretion of the Federal Courts, not Congress. That is no great power grab for Congress.

True -- but what is to stop Congress from rushing more laws in that apply in very narrowly defined cases?

The voters. Either the voters will dislike it, tolerate it, or support it.

The voters. Either the voters will dislike it, tolerate it, or support it.


apparently, in this case at least, the voters do not approve it (gallup did a poll of who favored pulling the plug, and majority says yes)

Article 1, section 8 states that Congress may do anything "necessary and proper" to carry out the constitution. While this may be scary that a law is passed specifically for one person, it is perfectly legal.

Whether Congress or The President did what's right, that's up to debate, my opinion is that someone is starving to death as we debate, and she deserves a fair hearing in someplace other than where's she's been, but since she's already had it, and I doubt anything will change if the family decides to take the case to the US Supreme Court.

But it suprises me, this seems to be the only time that the Democrats are advocating death, the NY Times and the LA Times, saying that starvation isn't all that bad.

I personally don't know what I would do in these folks shoes, I could say that I'd want my plug pulled if I ever got into a vegetative state, but I still have that choice today, so as time moves on, I guess we'll see.

Article 1, section 8 states that Congress may do anything "necessary and proper" to carry out the constitution. While this may be scary that a law is passed specifically for one person, it is perfectly legal.

Ah, but that is the question I have. IS writing a law that intervenes in how the judicial branch works Constitutional? After all, the separation of the branches is clearly set out....

Ah, but that is the question I have. IS writing a law that intervenes in how the judicial branch works Constitutional? After all, the separation of the branches is clearly set out....


which makes it scary that this is a rush job, too.

the court doesn't get a chance to really mesh it all out (to find any unconstitutionalities that are not immediately apparent) before the law goes into effect.

they don't get a chance to strike it down as unconstitutional before it happens, and in a case where it adjusts the balance of powers, that is the last thing you want.


oh, and rynox, if you want to talk about what should or should not be done to terry, go to the thread i linked to in the first post.

Ah, but that is the question I have. IS writing a law that intervenes in how the judicial branch works Constitutional? After all, the separation of the branches is clearly set out....
No. However, they did not do that. They just simply reffered Ms. Schaivo's case to the Federal courts. That is not specified in the Constitution that Congress can't do that, and thus, Congress can do that.

No. However, they did not do that. They just simply reffered Ms. Schaivo's case to the Federal courts. That is not specified in the Constitution that Congress can't do that, and thus, Congress can do that.

I think you have the constitution backwards. It says what Congress has the power to do.

It's not possible list all that Congress can't do. So it is listed what they can do.

Does it say that Congress can't force suicide on a group of people. NO, but that doesn't mean they can do it.