Terri Schiavo Debate OpeningcargillMarch 22 2005, 09:44:20 UTC
Nothing has inspired as much fervent debate and ardent posturing in the media as of late as the Terri Schaivo case, a case so over covered by both blogs and the mainstream media that the facts of the case bear not repeating here (although I will be happy to if brainlesswonder would prefer.) What can be said, however, is that a media eager for sensation and a public eating up every detail has managed to spin facts way past the truth, and most Americans who would consider themselves knowledgeable about the case, in fact are not. I myself will not to pretend to be an expert on the case, but what I can say is that neither side is being wholly truthful about the state of things. What’s left somewhere in the middle of these ‘facts’ is a woman whose ‘life’ hangs in the balance and a family torn apart by the bounds of legal guardianship. In an effort to score political points with a divided nation, Congress and the President have overstepped their bounds, both constitutionally and ethically, to circumvent the judicial system in this one case (and this one
( ... )
Re: Terri Schiavo Debate OpeningcargillMarch 22 2005, 09:44:49 UTC
We have a system of checks and balances in this country. Congress proposes legislation on a federal level, the president signs or vetoes said legislation, and if a case arises that calls into question the Constitutionality of said legislation the SCOTUS hears the case and rules on it. It is the duty of the State to make laws that are obeyed by the citizens of that state, who in turn have a system of checks and balances of their own, very similar to that on the federal level. These State Level laws are only to be overridden by Federal Law when laws are deemed necessary to protect or be obeyed by every citizen in the United States
( ... )
It seems that the argument being presented here is that the Congress of the United States of America has over stepped its bounds and circumvented the judicial system by extended Federal Court jurisdiction into matters that have been decided upon at the state level. It has also been suggested that because of politics that these actions are ethically questionable
( ... )
The Legal Some people have the impression that the Supreme Court is the top of our legal food chain. This is simply not true. Congress has the ability to advance and reduce the federal jurisdiction as it sees fit, it even has the ability to eliminate federal courts. It can not eliminate the Supreme Court, but it can change the number of members it has, and the jurisdiction of the cases that it hears. Congress, as designed by our constitution, is the most powerful unit of our governing structure. They are elected not appointed and not tenured. They were well within their legal and constitutional right to extend the federal jurisdiction to hear the Shiavo case.
cargill speaks of jurisdiction rules that I am not aware of, that are not defined in the constitution. There are buzzwords like "constitutional states rights", which in the end are exactly that, buzzwords. Certainly, the Supreme Court prefers not to hear cases that it agrees with that are decided on the state level. However, those that they do not agree with certainly can walk
( ... )
the best litmus test for this is simply changing the topic and asking if the people who are offended by this would still be offended if it was congress fighting to overturn a court ruling that would force Schiavo to live.
it seems a bit awkward to disqualify good intent because that good intent would also galvanize a group of constituents.
I would have to agree with Brainlesswonder here, except that he fails to actually show any kind of good intent on the part of our Congress in this manner. Quite to the contrary, as I mentioned before, despite the fact that the idea was discussed to forge legislation that affected all people in the situation Terri Shiavo finds herself, the idea was quickly shot down. The Congress had no will to debate or approve legislation that would show good intent - despite their powerful arguments on the floor proclaiming a 'right to life' - but rather chose only to intervene in a case that had caught national attention. That two of the reasons to vote for this legislation was the "pro-life base will be excited," and that it is a "great political issue -- this is a tough issue for Democrats," only further solidifies the notion that this was an attempt to capture the publics attention and force the democrats into a lose/lose
( ... )
Resonse (one) | Yeah, i'm an hour late but I just got up, don't read it.ex_brainlesMarch 26 2005, 18:07:52 UTC
Alas, at 4am I did make a small mistake. However, since "states rights" as a concept are far from defined or enumerated by the constitution, and are routinely disregarded by precedent of the Supreme Court, it has not be demonstrated in any way that their was any constitutional violation in their actions.
If this argument was to be hung on states rights, some effort into proving so would seem to be in order.
As far as my attention being drawn to the constitution, this might be the first time in my life that I have heard someone suggest that arcticle V is about separation.
Article III starts with this line: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. That seems like shared power, not separate.
Government power is about politics, period. One side things one thing is good, one thing thinks another is good, both sides believe they are doing whats best for the country.
All the polls that were shown simply demonstrate that my statement about a large portion of people not wanting this women to die was factual. Reaction really has nothing to do with intention. The public reacts badly to many things, that does not mean what they are reacting to is unethcical.
As far as the reason they stopped, it was suggested that it was because "states rights" were thrown back in their faces. However, the fact that a federal court chose to review an appeal from the state court, and rule not to grant it renders that statement false. They certainly upheld the Florida court decision, but if the reason was to protect state rights the court would simply have refused to even look at it.
Comments 13
Reply
Reply
Reply
Some people have the impression that the Supreme Court is the top of our legal food chain. This is simply not true. Congress has the ability to advance and reduce the federal jurisdiction as it sees fit, it even has the ability to eliminate federal courts. It can not eliminate the Supreme Court, but it can change the number of members it has, and the jurisdiction of the cases that it hears. Congress, as designed by our constitution, is the most powerful unit of our governing structure. They are elected not appointed and not tenured. They were well within their legal and constitutional right to extend the federal jurisdiction to hear the Shiavo case.
cargill speaks of jurisdiction rules that I am not aware of, that are not defined in the constitution. There are buzzwords like "constitutional states rights", which in the end are exactly that, buzzwords. Certainly, the Supreme Court prefers not to hear cases that it agrees with that are decided on the state level. However, those that they do not agree with certainly can walk ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I would have to agree with Brainlesswonder here, except that he fails to actually show any kind of good intent on the part of our Congress in this manner. Quite to the contrary, as I mentioned before, despite the fact that the idea was discussed to forge legislation that affected all people in the situation Terri Shiavo finds herself, the idea was quickly shot down. The Congress had no will to debate or approve legislation that would show good intent - despite their powerful arguments on the floor proclaiming a 'right to life' - but rather chose only to intervene in a case that had caught national attention. That two of the reasons to vote for this legislation was the "pro-life base will be excited," and that it is a "great political issue -- this is a tough issue for Democrats," only further solidifies the notion that this was an attempt to capture the publics attention and force the democrats into a lose/lose ( ... )
Reply
If this argument was to be hung on states rights, some effort into proving so would seem to be in order.
As far as my attention being drawn to the constitution, this might be the first time in my life that I have heard someone suggest that arcticle V is about separation.
Article III starts with this line: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. That seems like shared power, not separate.
I have nothing more to add to this issue.
Reply
All the polls that were shown simply demonstrate that my statement about a large portion of people not wanting this women to die was factual. Reaction really has nothing to do with intention. The public reacts badly to many things, that does not mean what they are reacting to is unethcical.
As far as the reason they stopped, it was suggested that it was because "states rights" were thrown back in their faces. However, the fact that a federal court chose to review an appeal from the state court, and rule not to grant it renders that statement false. They certainly upheld the Florida court decision, but if the reason was to protect state rights the court would simply have refused to even look at it.
Reply
Leave a comment