Bush signs emergency law to preempt state courts ref Terry Schiavo

[chequita guevara]

Given that the Constitution is excedingly vague on the matter, I'd have to say you're wrong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, the Constitution is NOT vague on this matter. There is no power of Congress under Art 1, Sec 8, where Congress can pass a law in this situation. The federal court can only hear cases involving a federal law or diversity jurisdiciton. The federal law is blatently unconstitutional (this is not commerce, people!).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Congress has the right to get involved with the courts.

I don't see how, not to this extent, not as far as interfering with the judicial process in progress.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, the Constitution is NOT vague on this matter. There is no power of Congress under Art 1, Sec 8, where Congress can pass a law in this situation. The federal court can only hear cases involving a federal law or diversity jurisdiciton. The federal law is blatently unconstitutional (this is not commerce, people!).

Clearly, if she's taking off the tube, the money will no longer go to the hospital, which will affect the profitability of the hospital, which could force the hospital to raise prices, which could affect prices in other states.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I don't see how, not to this extent, not as far as interfering with the judicial process in progress.

The judicial process was over. Schiavo won completely. IIRC, all Congress is doing is passing a law saying this can be heard in Federal courts, presumably on a civil rights basis.

[GePap]

On CNN congressman Wexler(D) from Florida made a very cimple point" if the parents had won the appeals, this would never have gone to congress- ie., its obvious the problem for Repugs and the dems who supported this farce of the law was not that, as one blockhead from Arizona puyt it on CNN last night, that "Terry's due process was violated", but instead that they disagreed with the Florida Court system's findings of fact.

I hope this law is struck down, and in fact, I do hope that the Federak judge who will hear this at 3pm will say "nothing wrong with the Floridfa ruling, due process was followed,t he evidence is sound, I will not overturn the local court's decision because I have nothing to do with this", and simply let this case end according to the laws of this country.

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The judicial process was over. Schiavo won completely. IIRC, all Congress is doing is passing a law saying this can be heard in Federal courts, presumably on a civil rights basis.

If there was a Civil Rights claim, the family could have long ago appealed to the Federal Courts.

Listening to the debate yesterday was a bit enlightening- the republican leader of the judiciarty committee was explaining WHY this bill was needed. Essentially, under the system before this bill, if a Federal Court decided to listen to this case they would have to in doing so accept the finding of fact of the lower court, and use it. With this bill, the Federal Court would be given the power to ignore the findings of the lower court and start anew.

This bill's purpose is to allow the findings of fact of the Florida court to be overturned and ignored, besically to re-start the clock. That is unacceptable.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Clearly, if she's taking off the tube, the money will no longer go to the hospital, which will affect the profitability of the hospital, which could force the hospital to raise prices, which could affect prices in other states.

[Boris Godunov]

Speaking of Bush hypocrisy on this matter, I wonder how many are aware that while as governor of Texas, Bush signed the Texas Futile Care Law. This allows doctors, if they have concluded that continued measures to prolong life are useless, to end such measures.

Last week, this law was used by doctors to remove a baby from life support in spite of the mother's wishes:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934

Where was the Republican bill for the baby? Where was the right-to-lifer outrage when Bush signed this bill into law?

Furthermore, considering that the GOP Congress has been gleefully calling for huge cuts in medicaid, which would in many cases help fund life-prolonging measures such as Schiavo's, I have to say the hypocrisy is just oozing from the right-wing in this matter. Good thing they aren't opposed to big malpractice verdicts that can help fund such...treatment...oops...

[SpencerH]

There is a fundemental difference between stopping artificial life support and stopping the provision of food and water. IMO, this sets a dangerous precedent since it is euthanasia of a mentally deficient person.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
There is a fundemental difference between stopping artificial life support and stopping the provision of food and water. IMO, this sets a dangerous precedent since it is euthanasia of a mentally deficient person.

Except the laws that allow for this act have been in the books for a long time- cases like this happen all the time, and the Corust found evidence that this is what the woman wanted.

The only bad precedent come from Congress.

[SpencerH]

AFAIK the ruling was based upon the removal of "treatment" (based upon court acceptance of evidence that she would not have wanted to live under these conditions). Providing food and water is not "treatment" however. The removal of food and water to an individual under these conditions is euthanasia and no different than suffocating her with a pillow.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by SpencerH
There is a fundemental difference between stopping artificial life support and stopping the provision of food and water. IMO, this sets a dangerous precedent since it is euthanasia of a mentally deficient person.

No there isn't

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GePap
This bill's purpose is to allow the findings of fact of the Florida court to be overturned and ignored, besically to re-start the clock. That is unacceptable.

That would be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause, would it not?

[Kuciwalker]

How?