RoR: Forum

This is one of the most frightening issues regarding US government power that I have seen in my lifetime. The congressional bill almost had the feel of a coup attempt, of congress attempting to remove the checks and balances inherent in our system. I was very relieved when the courts fought back as they did.

I have voted Republican since 1980. I am voting Democrat for now until the Republican majority in Congress is eliminated, because Democrats are simply bad, while Republicans in a majority are downright dangerous.

One additional scary item I found while tracking a link from R. Bidinotto's blog was that congress was working on a bill to prevent the judicairy from reveiewing or declaring the phrase 'Under God' in the pledge of allegiance to be a seperation of church and state issue, and thus unconstitutional. Who told congress they could simply declare by fiat that the courts could not rule on the constituinality of this? If they pass such a bill the courts damn well better review the whole law and declare it to be unconstituional in the first place. This current crop in congress is a very direct threat to individual liberty and seperation of church and state.

Post 1

Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 3:51pm

Obviously the congress did not overrule or remove any of the checks and balances with their decision in the Terri Schiavo case. According to Thomas Sowell what they did was this:
"When a case goes up to a higher court on appeal, the issue before the appellate court is not whether they agree with the merits of the decision of the lower court. In a criminal case, for example, the issue before the appellate court is not whether the defendant was guilty or innocent, but whether the trial was conducted properly.
In other words, the defendant is not supposed to be tried again at the appellate level. So, no matter how many appellate judges rule one way or the other, that tells you absolutely nothing about the fundamental question of guilt or innocence.
Similar principles apply in a civil case, such as that of Terri Schiavo. Liberals can count all the judges they want, but that does not mean that all these judges agreed with the merits of the original court's decision. It means that they found no basis for saying that the original court's decision was illegal.
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."

In response to this authorization, the federal court did this:

"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."

Who has demonstrated "flexing their muscles" and ignoring the intent of the "checks and balances" built into the constitution? A single judge overruled the congress of the United States. You can sleep better now.

" The liberal line, both in politics and in the media, is that Congress somehow behaved unconstitutionally. All federal courts except the Supreme Court are created by Congress. The Constitution itself gives Congress the authority to define or restrict the jurisdictions of federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
Is the Constitution unconstitutional?"

The rest of Dr. Sowell's column is here.

Post 2

Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 4:49pm

Excellent explanation, Mike.

For those worried about religious conservatives imposing a theocracy, relax. The polls all indicate that something like 80% of the American people are angry that Congress tried to intervene in what they believe is a private family matter. A huge margin also sided with husband Michael Schiavo over Terri's parents.

And note the reaction. Congressmen immediately ran for cover once the judge slapped them upside of the head. They took no further action. Not even the Bush brothers, who said, "Our hands are tied."

The Ayatollah wannabes on the Right are about to run into the same public rebellion that resulted in the abortive "Republican Revolution." The American people do NOT want government interfering in private family matters. Those politicians who insist on trying will be given their walking papers. Many in Congress and state legislatures are already starting to realize this.

This is going to blow over -- or cost a lot of conservative politicians their seats.

Post 3

Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 8:11pm

Helping the religious right again are the cowards over at TOC. In Deroy Murdock's syndicated column (National Review Online 3-30-05) about all the non-religious supporters of the religious right is, "Ed Hudgins, executive director of the Objectivist Center." "There are issues in this case that well-meaning and intelligent people on both sides can disagree with and have to think seriously about."
Well in February they had an event with anti-gay and anti-abortion congressmen, maybe they are following their convictions.

Post 4

Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 11:08pm

Ah yes, The Appeasement Center. As always.

Post 5

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 5:13am

Thank you, Mike. Sowell is correct. This has been a particularly frustrating current event in that emotions run high and I have been disinclined to discuss the matter. It seems as if people either "get it" or they don't.

What I have found to the extent that I have discussed it is that those who sided with the husband's decision to pull the feeding tubes do not seem to have a clue about what they are talking either medically, legally, ethically, or even regarding the facts of the case. Furthermore, they escalate the conversation so rapidly to a conclusion that they simply cannot be educated on any of the issues.

I have concluded that this "rush to judgement" arises from their own inner fears and anxieties surrounding the issue; they want to make it simply go away rather than deal with it. This is a purely emotional response to a difficult and tragic situation, but it is what I am sensing. When they blurt out "I wouldn't want to live like that!" what they really mean is, "I don't want to have to think about that," so pull the plug. Make the whole thing go away. Suppress the facts, ignore the issues, don't talk to me about it anymore...

The problem is that what most pull-the-plug people think are the facts in the Schiavo matter are not the facts. But it takes work, initiative, and a willingness to face both the issues and your own demons in detail to know what went on.

The result is that what passes on the surface as practical, dispassionate, objective methodology -- "remove the tubes" -- is, in fact, the cry of the frightened irrationalist. And irrationality won this fight.

Post 6

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 5:49am

Stuart wrote "remove the tubes" -- is, in fact, the cry of the frightened irrationalist.

Is it, in fact, really that simple? I could counter that "reinsert the tube" is, in fact, the cry of the religious altruistic mystical irrationalist who prefer to see one suffer. But that would ignore a whole range of possibilities.

(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 4/01, 5:50am)

(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 4/01, 5:51am)

Post 7

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 6:29am

Joe wrote:

Is it, in fact, really that simple? I could counter that "reinsert the tube" is, in fact, the cry of the religious altruistic mystical irrationalist who prefer to see one suffer. But that would ignore a whole range of possibilities.

The legal foundation for the suspension of food and water was the finding that she was in a persistent vegetative state. If she was, in fact, in such a state, she was not and could not have been suffering.

It is my understanding that she was not PVS, but, instead, in a "low state of consciousness." If you read the sworn affidavits of the attending nurses that were never part of the case before the court, and if you review all the videos, some of which were taken illegally and smuggled out in violation of the husband's directives, that is pretty clear. It is unlikely that a court would have supported suspension of nutrition to someone in that state. A de Nuovo review would have either affirmed or rebutted the original finding of her condition, and it was such a review that Congress asked for. It was such a review that the judge in Florida denied.

The courts did not have the facts. The courts did not want the facts. So what happened does not stand up to critical analysis.

Post 8

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 6:39am

Bob and Adam,

I am offended that you guys are hijacking this thread for another stale round of TOC-bashing. But since you began it here, let's end it here with one response.

As one who has had the occasional misfortune of being "quoted" in the press, I think you should rely on TOC commentaries for direct quotation, rather than a conservative, second-hand source not sympathetic to Objectivism.

But there's a broader issue. As the arguments about the Schiavo case on this site underscore, there are many complicated issues involved upon which reasonable people can and do disagree. They include such things as jurisdictional disputes between the three branches of government, the implications of the Constitution's 14th Amendment and whether that allows for federal intervention in a case of this kind, factual disputes concerning Terri's actual medical condition, factual disputes concerning the motives of Michael Schiavo and Terri's parents, whether it would have made better sense for Michael to relinquish custody to them or to some government agency, definitions of "personhood" and where rights begin and end, etc.

For me, some of these issues are a slam dunk. Others aren't. I've been outspoken about my position on them all -- and incidentally, my views probably mirror your own. But for you guys to cite a statement by Ed Hudgins (which simply acknowledged the FACT that this case is a complicated mess in which reasonable people might disagree on some issues) as an example of TOC "appeasement," actually reveals your own smugly dogmatic mindsets, in which ALL moral issues are easy and self-evident.

I also take offense at Bob's cheap shot about "anti-gay and anti-abortion congressman" speaking at a TOC event. I would agree with your criticism...if the congressMAN (not "men") in question had been pushing those positions in his TOC remarks. He wasn't: He was giving a rousing talk endorsing Ayn Rand's influence, and advocating the privatization of Social Security.

Which leads to a question: Are you two saying that the only people who should be invited to share public platforms are those who agree with you 100% on all aspects of issues? If not, then why the criticism of TOC in this case? (If so, prepare yourselves for lives as hermits.)

Rather than continue this here, let's "take it outside" elsewhere, if you wish, so that this thread isn't further diverted from the Schiavo topic.

Post 9

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 8:30am

Stuart,
I agree with you. People look at the pictures of Terri Schiavo and are so repulsed they go straight to the conclusion: "I wouldn't want to live like that". None of this is that simple. I never argued that Terri Schiavo was not in a PVS. My argument is that at no time did she become the "property" of Michael Schiavo. He had no written proof of her desires about living under life support and only brought the issue up after several years of disputes with Terri's family. This was a split decision all along. My understanding is the original appeals court was split 3 to 2. Thomas Sowell explained the difficulties involved with reversing an appeals court decision. The medical "experts" have different opinions. We are still awaiting the autopsy, I'm sure there will be arguments about those results. My conclusion was, and still is, there would be no harm to anyone if the guardianship of Terri Schiavo were transferred to her parents and they were allowed to care for her. If for nothing else than for the peace of mind of the Schindler family. But the same people who insist Terri was in a PVS also claim they don't want her to "suffer", so pull the plug. Why is it so easy to identify with Terri's "suffering", but hard to identify with her parent very real suffering? I think for many Objectivist's it is because of the support of the religious groups for Terri's family. I would rather have seen the same sense of compassion that Adam expressed so very well about Barbara's mother be applied to the family of Terri Schiavo.

Post 10

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 10:06am

Does "cheap shot" mean to state facts? Look at his web site for his views on gays and abortion. Robert, you said he gave a "rousing talk endorsing Ayn Rand's influence," but she must not have had much of an influence on him based on his speeches and voting record.

"...advocating the privatization of Social Security" is really "making Big Government work better." From Ryan's web site, "Top ten reasons why social security needs to be saved-and how it ought to be saved. We owe it to future generations..."BlahBlahBlah. Sounds very free market.

As of Schiavo, Ryan is one of the biggest pushers of replacing our culture with a "culture of life." He doesn't let the law stand in the way of his religious agenda.

So Adam is right, the Appeasement Center.

Press Release from the future: TOC ON THE CULTURE OF LIFE: Ed Hudgins on the religious right changing America to a "culture of life." "Who am I to judge, there are issues on both sides that we have to think seriously about." David Kelly: "Those who promote ideas we think are false do not automatically deserve moral censure, we might actually learn something, we should practice tolerance."

Post 11

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 7:45am

Robert Bidinotto said " The polls all indicate that something like 80% of the American people are angry that Congress tried to intervene in what they believe is a private family matter. A huge margin also sided with husband Michael Schiavo over Terri's parents."

Well its nice to know the American people have some sense, unlike the contingent here that seems to side with the mystics on this issue. I have heard it said that if you go far enough to the right, you will meet the same idiots coming from the left.

My favorite commentary on the topic is here: http://ffrf.org/news/2005/schiavo.php

Post 12

Friday, April 1, 2005 - 1:52pm