Schiavo Thread Part Deux

[Ned]

Republicans pissed on the constitution? In what way?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
No doubt that Republicans are pressing this issue. But the Dems are not united in opposition. Many, even if not a majority of Dems, are supportive.

As I said, the Dems were allowed to vote their conscience. Even then, only 47 voted in favor. That's barely over a quarter of their House numbers.

Conversely, Republicans weren't allowed to vote their conscience. They were whipped by Tom DeLay, eager to get his scandals out of the news. Probably a good number of them didn't really want to intervene.

Interesting examination of the Senate bill:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7013421/#050323a

Ironically, the politicization of Terri Schiavo and the play for evangelical voters looks like it may now cause Bill Frist more harm than good. The latest polls show Americans overwhelming against Congress getting involved in the case. And these were polls conducted BEFORE most Americans saw the fine print of the Congressional Schiavo bill. Despite the sweeping floor statements about "protecting life," the legislation itself did not require the federal courts to start by reinserting Schiavo's feeding tube. And while the bill does give the Schiavo family "jurisdiction and standing" to make an argument in federal court, take a look at Section 3 called "relief." Section 3 states, "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..." The key words are "after a determination..." Congress did not say the federal court must accept the merits of the lawsuit.

The GOP has conned the religious right yet again.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned
Republicans pissed on the constitution? In what way?

seperation of powers... legislation aimed at an individual... disregarding any notion of states rights

[Imran Siddiqui]

Boris, here's more:

Senate, House Democrats differed in handling of Schiavo bill
By LARRY LIPMAN
Cox News Service
Wednesday, March 23, 2005

WASHINGTON — When the Senate vote came Sunday afternoon to allow the parents of Terri Schiavo to by-pass the Florida courts and take the brain-damaged woman's case directly to federal court, Democrats were nowhere to be found.

Only three senators were in the chamber for the 4:30 p.m. vote: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, of Tennessee, Sen. John Warner of Virginia, and the bill's sponsor, Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, sitting in the presiding officer's chair. With no objections, the three Republican senators waived the rules and passed the bill on a voice vote.

Because there were NO Democrats in the chamber, the Republicans voted to waive the rules on quorum and pass the bill on voice vote. Sneaky, underhand tricks.

Ned, it was unanimous in the Senate of 3! No Democrat voted for the bill.

[Ned]

Boris, I have no doubt that the Religious Right is rabid about this issue. But does that require the more secular Democrats to react in reflexive opposition?

I would suggest that there is a moderate position somewhere in the middle. That is where the Democrat party should position itself if it really wants to win elections in the future.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sava
seperation of powers... legislation aimed at an individual... disregarding any notion of states rights

Yep... especially on seperation of power and states rights issues, the Republicans acted like Constitution didn't exist.

[Boris Godunov]

It disturbs me that any bill can be passed in such a way. That should be addressed. No bill should make it out of any chamber without quorum, at least.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yep... especially on seperation of power and states rights issues, the Republicans acted like Constitution didn't exist.

IMO, what they did should be criminal...

[Ned]

Sava and Imran, but all the legislation did is give jurisdiction to the district courts to here Federal questions regarding Terry. The legislation did not grant the courts any right to interfere with state law.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Boris, I have no doubt that the Religious Right is rabid about this issue. But does that require the more secular Democrats to react in reflexive opposition?

Obviously not, since they didn't. I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I for one think the Democrats handled this issue perfectly. They let the GOP torpedo themselves with it. It's always best to step back and let the opposition sink itself.

I would suggest that there is a moderate position somewhere in the middle. That is where the Democrat party should position itself if it really wants to win elections in the future.

The moderate position was staked out by the Dems--they let their members vote how they wanted, and officially "didn't get involved." Can't get much more moderate than that.

[Ned]

Imran, apparently you do not understand "unanimous consent" legislation. The Senate can only act in such matters if no Senator objects. The vote was take with the knowledge and consent of every Senator, present or not.

[Sava]

Imran knows more about such things than me... but AFAIK, it's pretty clear this is a violation of the seperation of powers as outlined in the Constitution.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned
Imran, apparently you do not understand "unanimous consent" legislation. The Senate can only act in such matters if no Senator objects. The vote was take with the knowledge and consent of every Senator, present or not.

any evidence for this claim?

[Imran Siddiqui]

all the legislation did is give jurisdiction to the district courts to here Federal questions regarding Terry. The legislation did not grant the courts any right to interfere with state law.

Um, giving jurisdiction to the federal district to REOPEN the case violates the soveriegnty of the Florida court system. The case was sent up to the US Supreme Court and it denied the appeal.

It went up and down the state courts and the parents never brought up the federal issue until the case was done with.

The law violates the principle of res judicata.


And this isn't a 'liberal' interpretation. The FOX News legal analyist said it was blatently unconstitutional.

[Ned]

Boris, you are right on the call of the Dems. It was "moderate." That is why I resist thinking of this issue as a Republican vs. Democrat issue. It is not.