Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Tom DeLay, Emperor.
Now here's an interesting quote:
Must be nice to be king.
For the record, Judge James D. Whittemore of Federal District Court in Tampa applied the law exactly right. He found no violation of Terri Schiavo's rights of due process. Accordingly he did not grant the temporary injunction mandating the reinsertion of a feeding tube.
To give you, poor readers, an understanding of what the Schindler's were asking--and what Tom Delay says he expected Judge Whittemore to agree with--here, in layman's terms, are the specific five complaints they bought forth:
1. That by ruling against them Florida Judge Greer had become an "advocate", which denied Terri Schiavo her rights of due process. Judge Whittemore found--and you may want to write this down 'cause it's a complex concept--that judges are "judges" who try cases and then issue a "decision", and that by ruling against one side he did not become an "advocate" for the other side. Tough legal concept, we know. (Actually, for Tom Delay, it is--he thinks judges just do whatever he tells them to.)
2. That Terri was denied due process when Judge Greer: a) failed to appoint a guardian ad litem b) failed to appoint an "independent" attorney for Terri and c) failed to meet her in person. Judge Whittemore found: a) that the court had, you know, appointed a guardian ad litem (and pointed out that he'd testified at the trial) b) that neither due process nor Florida law required the trial judge to meet Terri, and c) that not only was Terri adequetely represented by counsel in the form of her guardian's attorney (who was, legally, acting on her behalf) but that even considering her parent's contention that only they were acting on her behalf, well, they were pretty well represented, too. (Very well represented, actually, if you consider that they got a special law out of Congress and President Bush passed just for them.)
3. That Terri was denied her right to equal protection because she needn't have had a guardian appointed because the rules governing incapacitated people vary and are different for those who aren't incapacitated (and, presumably, she wasn't incapacitated). Judge Whittemore found this claim to be without merit.
4 and 5. That Terri's rights to religious freedom were denied because the removal of a feeding tube is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Judge Whittemore found that a judgement to determine a person's "wishes" was not a government burden on his or her religion (since it was Terri's, and not her parents' "wishes" that were at issues), and that by the way Michael Schiavo can't be sued on these grounds because he's not a government and the law only prohibits "religious burdens imposed by governments".
Now, which of these findings do you suppose Tom DeLay would want reversed? We'd love to hear it.
Strike that--no we wouldn't.
"Congress explicitly provided Terri Schiavo's family recourse to federal court, and this decision is at odds with both the clear intent of Congress and the constitutional rights of a helpless young woman."Apparently Mr. DeLay believes that Congress can pass a law that not only sends a state matter to federal court, but also instructs the federal judge on what his finding should be, and oh, by the way, decides what is and isn't Constitutional. Handy! Must be some new theory of the separation of powers.
"Section two of the legislation we passed clearly requires the court determine de novo the merits of the case -- or in layman's terms, it requires a completely new and full review of the case."Hmm, he seems to be saying it again. The federal court is hereby ordered to retry a case that was litigated for nine years in its proper venue and must come to the conclusion we decree regardless of whether it finds a violation of federal law. I'm getting a feel for this now.
"Section three requires the judge to grant a temporary restraining order because he cannot fulfill his or her recognized duty to review the case de novo without first keeping Terri Schiavo alive."Yup, that's it alright. He not only believes Congress can expand the jurisdiction of the federal court without providing any legal framework for it--he thinks he can tell that court how to rule.
Must be nice to be king.
For the record, Judge James D. Whittemore of Federal District Court in Tampa applied the law exactly right. He found no violation of Terri Schiavo's rights of due process. Accordingly he did not grant the temporary injunction mandating the reinsertion of a feeding tube.
To give you, poor readers, an understanding of what the Schindler's were asking--and what Tom Delay says he expected Judge Whittemore to agree with--here, in layman's terms, are the specific five complaints they bought forth:
1. That by ruling against them Florida Judge Greer had become an "advocate", which denied Terri Schiavo her rights of due process. Judge Whittemore found--and you may want to write this down 'cause it's a complex concept--that judges are "judges" who try cases and then issue a "decision", and that by ruling against one side he did not become an "advocate" for the other side. Tough legal concept, we know. (Actually, for Tom Delay, it is--he thinks judges just do whatever he tells them to.)
2. That Terri was denied due process when Judge Greer: a) failed to appoint a guardian ad litem b) failed to appoint an "independent" attorney for Terri and c) failed to meet her in person. Judge Whittemore found: a) that the court had, you know, appointed a guardian ad litem (and pointed out that he'd testified at the trial) b) that neither due process nor Florida law required the trial judge to meet Terri, and c) that not only was Terri adequetely represented by counsel in the form of her guardian's attorney (who was, legally, acting on her behalf) but that even considering her parent's contention that only they were acting on her behalf, well, they were pretty well represented, too. (Very well represented, actually, if you consider that they got a special law out of Congress and President Bush passed just for them.)
3. That Terri was denied her right to equal protection because she needn't have had a guardian appointed because the rules governing incapacitated people vary and are different for those who aren't incapacitated (and, presumably, she wasn't incapacitated). Judge Whittemore found this claim to be without merit.
4 and 5. That Terri's rights to religious freedom were denied because the removal of a feeding tube is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Judge Whittemore found that a judgement to determine a person's "wishes" was not a government burden on his or her religion (since it was Terri's, and not her parents' "wishes" that were at issues), and that by the way Michael Schiavo can't be sued on these grounds because he's not a government and the law only prohibits "religious burdens imposed by governments".
Now, which of these findings do you suppose Tom DeLay would want reversed? We'd love to hear it.
Strike that--no we wouldn't.
