Schiavo Thread Part Deux

[Boris Godunov]

Doesn't matter if it's true or not, it's not in anyway indicative that the Senate Dems "supported" the measure--just that they wanted to stay out of it. They knew full well that there was no reason to go in and voice any opinion when the GOP was so effectively shooting themselves in the foot.

Ned doesn't seem to understand that the official Dem ambivalence was a calculated political move, and so far it has worked well.

[Sava]

Ned, to my knowledge, nobody has said this is a Dem vs Repuke issue. My position is that this is being driven by the Repukes. But it's possible for this issue to be driven by one party without it being party vs party.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by 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.

Oh, I agree. It's a Republican vs. the Constitution issue. And Republican vs. common sense. And Republican vs. American majority sentiment. And Republican vs. personal liberty and the rights of the individual. Etc., ad nauseum.

[Ned]

Imran, the Feds always seem to be receptive of new evidence when Habeas Corpus petitions are involved. They are not bound by the record of the state courts in such cases.

Why should a de novo hearing involving Federal Rights violate State Rights?

[Boris Godunov]

BTW, Sen. Warner of Virgina opposed the bill in the voice vote. So it was passed 2-1 in a voice vote where only 3 Republicans were present.

[Ned]

Boris, if so, the Dems should make an issue of what the Republicans are doing or attempting to do. But that is where the opinions of Hillary and Dean are important. The opinions of us common folk, Dem or Republican respectively, do no count.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
BTW, Sen. Warner of Virgina opposed the bill in the voice vote. So it was passed 2-1 in a voice vote where only 3 Republicans were present.

Boris, I think then that Warner was the sole dissenting vote.

BTW, for the record, Warner is a Republican. This illustrates that the Republican party is not united on this issue as well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the Feds always seem to be receptive of new evidence when Habeas Corpus petitions are involved. They are not bound by the record of the state courts in such cases.

Habeas corpus petitions involve jailed individuals. They have no application here. It is only in criminal cases, in order to release the accused from detention. This is a civil case.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has rejected the appeal. The federal system decided not to take it.

Why should a de novo hearing involving Federal Rights violate State Rights?

Because it weakens the Florida judiciary, by making their final civil court decisions reopenable. Therefore, there is no finality to any case in Florida cases if Congress has this power.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Boris, if so, the Dems should make an issue of what the Republicans are doing or attempting to do.

I'm sure they will, but they appear to be having the decency to wait until after Terri has passed away before they start their political wrangling over it.

BTW, here's a quote:

"[The Republican Party] is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing. This couldn't be a more classic case of a state responsibility."

"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy. There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them."

---Rep. Chris Shays of CT (Republican)

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
Ned, to my knowledge, nobody has said this is a Dem vs Repuke issue. My position is that this is being driven by the Repukes. But it's possible for this issue to be driven by one party without it being party vs party.

Clearly Sava, this issue is being driven by social conservatives, who now largely find a home in the Republican Party. However, not all Republicans are on board, albeit, I suspect a majority are. But is also appears that many Dems are supportive as well.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Boris, I think then that Warner was the sole dissenting vote.

Since I said the vote was 2-1, and Warner opposed it, I would have to agree. Wow, you sure are a math wiz, Ned.

BTW, for the record, Warner is a Republican. This illustrates that the Republican party is not united on this issue as well.

Ah, but it's public perception that matters. And in the House, that certainly wasn't the case.

An excerpt from Warner's opposition:

"It looks as if it's a wholly Republican exercise," Mr. Warner said, "but in the ranks of the Republican Party, there is not a unanimous view that Congress should be taking this step."

I don't think the Senate GOP is as much on the lunatic fringe as the House GOP is, but that is usually the case for either party. But the clear outcome of the voting is that it left Congress with a disctinct appearance that this was a Republican issue. You can thank Dr. Frist and his inappropriate Senate floor diagnosis and Tom "Desperate to Divert Attention" DeLay for that.

[Ned]

Imran, there are many different instances where appeals to the Feds can be made "on the record below" or by means of a "de novo" hearing before the district court.

The initial appeal by Terry's lawyers appeared to take the former route and was rebuffed by the Feds because the record below did not seem to create a substantial federal issue. They are now trying the second route through a de novo hearing.

But, as this legislation applies only to Terry, it cannot create "uncertainty" in other cases.

[Ned]

Boris, I say again that it cannot be made a partisan issue unless the Dems make it such. To date, they have not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

there are many different instances where appeals to the Feds can be made "on the record below" or by means of a "de novo" hearing before the district court.

Not when the case has gone up and down the ladder and has ended in a final judgment.

That is called the principle of res judicata. Once a civil case is finished, it cannot be reopened. It is one of the most cherished underpinnings to our legal system.

Congress cannot simply case res judicata aside and claim that a federal court can reopen a closed case.

Terry's lawyers appeared to take the former route and was rebuffed by the Feds because the record below did not seem to create a substantial federal issue.

And so it's done. The lawyers probably also tried to remove the case to federal court based on civil rights of Schiavo and the federal court system rejected it.

But, as this legislation applies only to Terry, it cannot create "uncertainty" in other cases.

Of course it can. Simply because a legislation only applies to one person (which brings up the question of whether Congress' action is actually an attempt to pass a judicial order, which would violate the seperation of powers because only a court can do that), doesn't mean it dies with that person, even if they try to say it has no precedential value (Congress can't declare whether or not a law is precedent, that's the judiciary's right as well).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Boris, I say again that it cannot be made a partisan issue unless the Dems make it such. To date, they have not.

The GOP made it a partisan issue. Did you read the talking points memo, believed to be from Santorum's office? They clearly were out to make it a partisan issue. Just because the Dems didn't rise to the bait and outfoxed the GOP doesn't make the GOP's meddling in this affair for their own political gain any less partisan.