From Reuters:
WASHINGTON - Christian conservatives, led by some top Republicans, are stepping up their assault on the U.S. judiciary in response to the Terri Schiavo case, saying judges are attacking religion and must be reined in…
House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay, under fire for his use of campaign dollars and other ethical problems, addressed the conference in a videotaped message on Thursday in which he denounced a “judiciary run amok.”
“Our next step, whatever it is, must be more than rhetoric,” the Texas Republican told the conference…
Conservatives including DeLay have intensified their criticism of judges in the aftermath of the Schiavo case. Several at the conference said the Florida woman who died last week, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed, was a victim of “judicial murder.”
_____________________________
Apologies in advance. I’ve been trying to come up with a funny, satirical take on this thing for a month now. But unless I’m reading things wrong, the real truth about the Schiavo case and its relationship to “judicial activism” is being drowned out by a Wacky Tide. Satire’s not gonna do it, and I need to clear my head for future hi-jinx. I’m not saying that the media’s not doing its job here, but…
… wait a second. That’s exactly what I’m saying. The media’s not doing its job here. So…
However you feel about the Schiavo case, it’s not an instance of “judicial activism.” I’ll break it down, and I challenge anyone to Find the Activist Judge here:
1) It’s legal to disconnect a feeding tube from a hopelessly vegetative patient, if that is in accordance with the patient’s wishes.
2) The courts in Florida determined that this was in accordance with Terri Schiavo’s wishes.
3) The courts in Florida determined that Terri Schiavo was in a “persistent vegetative state.”
4) Every other court in the land upheld the rulings as being squarely within the law.
Nothing on the above list shows a court doing anything that is not explicitly and directly within its powers.
Why has the media failed us on this and allowed the dialogue to turn to “activist judges?” Mainly, I’d guess, because nobody could resist turning the Terri Schiavo case into a national discussion about end-of-life and right-to-life issues. As a result, it started to look like the courts were making dramatic decisions about the rights of the disabled or deeper life issues. Legally, though, it was never about that.
Here’s a link to all the court documents. Give ‘em a read. You’ll see.
The whole legal controversy rests on two contentions by Terri Schiavo’s parents: 1) That Terri’s husband was lying about Terri’s wishes, and 2) That Terri’s condition was not a “persistent vegetative state.” When someone makes assertions like that, there’s only one place to go: The courts. Is there any other body in government that has the right to rule on that type of thing? Congress? The President? The Governor?
Nope.
Did the court do its duty in evaluating the evidence concerning Terri Schiavo’s wishes and her medical condition? Exhaustively. Even if you disagree with the decision, there’s no doubt that this is exactly what happened. The two relevant legal issues were judged by judges whose job it was to judge them. Is there activism here? Where? Is a law being stretched or reinterpreted? Which law?
Any “Save Terri” arguments - any rational, legal ones - had to be based on one or both of those two contentions: That Michael Schiavo was lying or that the court-appointed medical experts were tragically wrong. As much as the nation wanted this case to be about right-to-life v. right-to die, it never was.
Once again: How does any of this amount to judicial activism? What law was altered, reinterpreted, or ignored? Let me know. Forward this to your conservative friends. Let’s discuss it in the Comments.
Clearly the anti-activist judge movement is bigger than this case. But using this case at all is wrongheaded at best and manipulative, cynical, and venal at worst.
If you feel like the judiciary has exceeded its powers in decisions like Roe v. Wade or Ten Commandments issues or school prayer… you may have a case. I don’t agree with you, but it’s a reasoned argument. But if you attach to that the sad affair of Terri Schiavo…
…then you’re a sucker, plain and simple. You’re unthinkingly buying into the rhetoric of a thuggish attack machine that is in reality betraying you with its flagrant disregard for law, fact, and precedent.
One last time - in the Schiavo case, where’s the judicial activism?
I’ll be waiting in the Comments below. Bring chips and soda.
Fanny Roborat
65 comments
Trackback from AssortedStuff - Down To Two Branches And Counting
April 9, 2005 at 8:57 am
Jacobo
April 8, 2005 at 6:02 pm
1Crickets are a’chirpin’.
Mike Z
April 8, 2005 at 6:59 pm
2Adam - I certainly agree with you about the logic and legality of the situation and I share your frustration with the likes of Tom DeLay.
However:
1) Those who are really paying attention already know all this and didn’t need to be told by the media. Even lots of powerful republicans are disassociating themselves from DeLay’s specious arguments in this case.
2) Those who agree with DeLay are not at all interested in finding real arguments for their positions or facing real arguments against them. So, I’m afraid your challenge will go unmet.
bjd
April 8, 2005 at 7:01 pm
3Hey, you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t.
“The only thing worse than activist judges are inactivist judges.”
http://tinyurl.com/4zteu
Joan
April 8, 2005 at 7:09 pm
4I don’t know all the ins and outs of the case, but at one point the Florida legislature passed a law on Ms. Schiavo’s behalf that was later ruled unconstitutional, yes? Could that be a part of claims about judicial activism?
It was very suspect for this to become a federal case, even though my own belief is that the right thing to do for someone in Ms. Schiavo’s condition is to feed them.
Bob
April 8, 2005 at 7:27 pm
5The reasoning goes like this:
1) The courts made a decision I don’t like.
2) I like the Constitution. (I’m an American, damn it!)
3) Therefore the courts must be misinterpreting the Constitution. And because all of the courts are doing it, it must be a conspiracy of “activists” who want to thwart the intent of our country’s most sacred document (bring up “Battle Hymn of the Republic” in the background).
Ted Williams was a hell of a baseball player, but I’ll always remember him for having said, “If you don’t think too good, don’t think too much.”
Lynne
April 8, 2005 at 7:40 pm
6Joan, you are correct that Jeb Bush and the Florida House and Senate had their own “Terri’s Law” in 2003. It was found unconstitutional.
I don’t understand the people who support a culture of life and then threaten judges, want to see Michael Schiavo killed and threaten his sister. The same people who speak of the sanctity of marriage, except in this case. The same people who want to cut Medicaid, except in this case, who want to cut the judgements for “frivolous” law suits, except in this case.
The Judiciary in this case was the only branch of the government that actually acted responibly and followed the law.
And they’re asking for money to protect them. From The Washington Post:
Worried after recent attacks, federal judges urged Congress yesterday to provide more protection, including $12 million for security systems in most of their homes.
Unfortunately, at the present time federal judges across the country are feeling particularly vulnerable, not only for themselves, but also for their families,” said a letter from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the court’s policymaking board, led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.
The culture of life, indeed.
Pete in Van Diemen's Land
April 8, 2005 at 7:43 pm
7The whole affair, from partially vegetative start to fully vegetative finish, stinks.
Kid : Can I keep it? huh? Huh?
Brother: no way! It’s disgusting. Chuck it. That’s final.
Kid : That’s not fair! I’m asking dad.
Kid : Dad, can I keep it?
Dad : No, it’s dead, leave it where you found it. That’s final.
Kid : Mom, can I keep it?
Mom : No, it smells funny and you’ll get germs. Bury it somewhere and pray for another one. That’s final.
Kid : Judge, can I keep it?
… etc.
While I don’t know much of the inner workings of the appeals circuit in the US, it just seems that some people don’t know when no means no. And for anyone, Terry’s family, conservative poll-aticians, whoever, to now say “That’s not fair, you cheated” is way beyond bad manners.
On NPR, they sound-bit someone who said (and I paraphrase) “Due process was followed at each and every step of the way. Obviously, that’s not good enough for some people.”
As bjd said, the judges were damned if they did and thrice-damned if they didn’t.
In VDL, appealing the appeal for the appeal over the appeal pending the appeal for the appeal would lose public sympathy in a big way. (Why does it feel like I just said “Once, in bandcamp…”?)
hedera
April 8, 2005 at 8:23 pm
8What drives me nuts about all this hullaballoo around “activist judges” is this: the Repubs claim we wouldn’t have Roe v. Wade, and any other judicial decision they don’t like (shall we discuss Brown v. Board of Education again?), because “activist judges” overrode “the will of the people.” They usually use “activist” as a synonym for “Democratic”; that’s what brought down Rose Bird in California.
As far as I can tell, the judges who ruled on the Schiavo case were, to a judge, Republicans! One of them, I recall hearing, was appointed by George H. W. Bush. This are not wild-eyed raving liberals. And I agree entirely with Adam - nowhere did they do anything but rule on the legal points at issue in the case. But Tom DeLay doesn’t like it, so they’re “activist judges” and we have to “do something” about them…
Tom deLay is turning into a Joe McCarthy. The man is a witch hunter, and things are so because he says them three times. Where is the man who will stand up before a national audience and ask, “Mr. DeLay, have you no shame?”
Linkmeister
April 8, 2005 at 8:30 pm
9Further threats besides DeLay’s have come forth. From Congress Daily (sub. req.):
Participants at this week’s Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration meeting said the group also will focus on forcing Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against any judge who does not conform with their biblically based interpretation of the Constitution, as well as permanently curb judicial authority over matters of church and state, marriage and governmental acknowledgement of a Christian deity.
“What it is time to do is impeach justices,” Texas Justice Foundation President Allan Parker extolled a crowd of a hundred or so conservative lobbyists, attorneys and activists. “The standard should be any judge who believes in the ‘living constitution’ should be impeached.
Abner Cadaver
April 8, 2005 at 8:47 pm
10I haven’t seen the word “venal” in ages. Venal is exactly what it was.
Deno the Untergeek
April 8, 2005 at 10:16 pm
11It’s tragic that politicians like DeLay are using a death of an already-dead (brain-death isn’t something you can ever recover from…EVER) woman who would have been shocked at what she was turned into on national television for their own gain. Disgusting.
If it weren’t for an independant judiciary, we’d still have Jim Crow laws and no Title IX.
I’d say that we are better off with one. If we don’t have the judicial branch acting independantly from the other branches, we’d have facsist state. No thanks, I’m not a big fan of fascism. Now, DeLay, he strikes me as a little Napoleon, greedy for power and so little else.
hedera
April 8, 2005 at 10:24 pm
12This is all too disgusting. In an attempt to get everyone to laugh a little, let me refer you to a communique from a new religious group, first reported today by Jon Carroll of the San Francisco Chronicle:
the Unitarian Jihad….
There will be coffee and cookies in the Gandhi Room after the revolution.
adam
April 8, 2005 at 10:35 pm
13Joan -
I think you’re right in saying that the overturning of the Florida legislature’s act is part of the reason for the calls of “judicial activism” (though EVERYTHING the courts have done has been similarly tarred).
But if you read the Florida Supreme Court’s decision on “Terri’s Law,” you’ll see it’s nothing of the sort. All they’re doing is reaffirming the explicit separation of powers in both the US and the Florida Constitutions.
Also, that particular document [click on “Opinion Florida’s Supreme Court rules that the law enacted by Gov. Jeb Bush…”] is a pretty good read.
David
April 8, 2005 at 10:47 pm
14hedera,
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Regarding the reactionary fundamentalist jihad against an independent judiciary, keep in mind that an independent judiciary is anathema to a banana republican government. Sure hope what we are seeing is the long awaited self-immolating schism within the American Banana Republican movement, which is nothing more than the Latin American banana republican movement come home to its incubator. Who can forget the picture of Pat Roberston in his aviator sunglasses reviewing the troops in Honduras in the 80s, I assume as the personal guest of John “Kill a Commie for Ronnie ‘n George” Negroponte.
Adam, you cannot find what isn’t. You’d have to be an utterly delusional fundamentalist, especially one who’d breathed too many insecticides. There just doesn’t exist a credible argument that these judges did anything besides what they were obligated and took an oath to do.
Only thing I don’t understand is how Tom the Cockroach survived his own products. Guess he’s an insecticide-induced mutation, a true super roach.
Ulwan
April 8, 2005 at 10:48 pm
15What seems to have gotten lost in this, and many other discussions of similar cases, is that the US Constitution is specifically DESIGNED to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.
That is what the whole Bill of Rights is there to do–to keep the many from imposing their will on the few. A role that is inherently “undemocratic” but none less very much a part of what has defined the American experience and is arguably one of things of which we should be most proud.
The problem is that this very basic, but very important, concept seems to have totally escaped this particular “majority” and rather than standing up for the ideals embodied in our constitution they seem bent on destroying the very system that they claim to revere.
What is difficult for me to understand is how it can be so very obvious to some of us and so totally beyond the kin of others.
Ted B.
April 9, 2005 at 9:33 am
17Thank You Adam.
Murray
April 9, 2005 at 10:53 am
18Adam, yer droppin yer bucket down a dry well.
You are looking for logic where none is due.
Of course there is no sense in what Tom Cockroach Delay says. His audience doesn’t require it. As a matter of fact it confuses and angers them. And so where are the Democrats to call him on this piece of crap? Uhh.. hmmm. Same place they were when the Pres went to the Bureau of Department of Debt, to say that our bonds were probably worthless.
As always 9 words say it all.
R are Ruthless
D are Gutless
A are Idiots.
Lynne
April 9, 2005 at 12:16 pm
19From The Washington Post this morning:
Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is a fairly accomplished jurist, but he might want to get himself a good lawyer — and perhaps a few more bodyguards.
Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of “Remedies to Judicial Tyranny” decided that Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, should be impeached, or worse.
Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy’s opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles “is a good ground of impeachment.” To cheers and applause from those gathered at a downtown Marriott for a conference on “Confronting the Judicial War on Faith,” Schlafly said that Kennedy had not met the “good behavior” requirement for office and that “Congress ought to talk about impeachment.”
Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his “bottom line” for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. “He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: ‘no man, no problem,’ ” Vieira said.
The full Stalin quote, for those who don’t recognize it, is “Death solves all problems: no man, no problem.” Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush’s judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly.
These are frightening times when the right is threatening one of the judges who appointed Bush president.
Perhaps Justice Kennedy is reconsidering his vote now.
hedera
April 9, 2005 at 3:55 pm
20I read the whole article, Lynne. This was an amazing collection of extremist whackos; they even dredged up Dannemeyer (who, thank God, no longer represents any portion of California in Congress). These people are terrifying; with them in control of anything, we’d be back in 17th century Salem before you could blink.
And while I believe in free speech, even for those I disagree with, isn’t there a limit in the “fire in a crowded theater” principle? Does what this Vieira suggested not come close enough to inciting to commit murder that he could come under a little closer scrutiny by the courts, himself?? It looks to my simple mind that he’s suggesting someone should kill Judge Kennedy. I don’t approve of Judge Kennedy myself (for other reasons) but this seems beyond the pale; there’s a smack of Henry II saying “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” and then officially knowing nothing about it when two of his nobles went and cut down the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Pete in Van Diemen's Land
April 9, 2005 at 5:40 pm
21Maybe someone should call the fundies what they obviously are missing - they’re unable to change the rules legally, so they want to do it any way they can. Exactly how is this different from the “terrism” tactics used by fundie (and misled) Muslims? Answer: a matter of availability and courage. You’ll notice that the christian fundie tactics are always the same: snipe, snipe, snipe, over-react, disavow mentally deranged fundie activist, snipe, snipe…
I wonder if old Ben had similar problems when he was around. He’d be gnashing his wooden teeth, surely?
Mike Z
April 9, 2005 at 6:17 pm
22Pete - I think you are definitely on to something there. When we hear about extremist mullahs inciting jihad from the mosque’s loudspeakers, we ask “Where are the moderates to balance this influence?”
The loud secularists don’t really matter because everyone already knows where they stand. Rather, the moderate religious center needs to let themselves be heard a little more–both in the Arab world and, increasingly, in the U.S.
Pete in Van Diemen's Land
April 9, 2005 at 11:39 pm
23Exactly, Mike!
CNN or FOX or CBS isn’t working!
I can’t remember the Greek word, but the phrase “no excess” (sometimes paraphrased as “moderation in everything”) really made an impact on my thinking from years ago. And the principle of no excess is exactly what’s lacking in all these issues.
So yeah, where are the loud moderates? (If that’s not an oxymoron). Are they all rolling their eyes and clucking their tongues out here among the crickets? I know many of the readers of this blog are active in their community, but why does it still feel like we are the silent majority? And why are we so silent when the important stuff happens? Are people like us saying this stuff but the media is only looking for extreme views to air? In that case, how the f*ck do we get the media to listen to us? Obviously, _not watching_ (dunno how to do italics in MT
Extremists:1 Rationalists : zip.
Joan
April 10, 2005 at 12:03 am
24. . . the moderate religious center needs to let themselves be heard a little more
Quite true.
So yeah, where are the loud moderates? (If that’s not an oxymoron).
Exactly. How are non-screamers ever going to beat screamers in the battle for publicity? I have no idea how to influence television, but here on the internet we can all do our little bit. Here are some places where you get acquainted with some progressive Christians and liberal pro-lifers.
Jerry
April 10, 2005 at 12:04 am
25hedera - I know that if some poor kid in high school wrote that in an essay, or had it in a note in his pocket that he showed to a friend, he would be expelled and towed away by the police, and his life ruined, and his parents impoverished getting a lawyer to defend him.
Jerry
April 10, 2005 at 12:21 am
26Pte IVDL - our mythology actualy has George Washington with wooden teeth. Ben Franklin is only known for inventing everything, living high in France, and screwing just abour every chick he could get his hands on.
Here’s a quick refernece for the tags that will work he (bold, italics, etc.) http://www.htmlgoodies.com/primers/html/article.php/3478151
(left caret)A href=”url”(right caret)words linked(left caret)/A(right caret) to post a link.
tess
April 10, 2005 at 12:42 am
27The only pro-lifer who says she’s a feminist that I can think of Patrician Heaton, and I’m sorry to say that I think she’s an idiot, but she’s only one person. I kinda hope that Feminists For Life disavow any link to her like the Republicans are from Delay. She made something of an ass of herself when she came to the defense of the Schindler’s cause from what I recall reading.
I’m still stuck in the reasoning rut that Terry was somehow “living” by any standards. If you’re so badly brain damaged from hypoxia that it even destroys your ability to swallow (and that’s pretty far down the line in terms of brain functions that die from oxygen deprivation, along the lines of being able to move one’s diaphram, or pumping the heart, as I recall it), then what’s left is about the same intellectual level as, say, a jellyfish. Despite all the legal arguments that are at the center of this case, this one aspect just continues to boggle my mind, and I can’t let go. It defies everything I understand in this world about our bodies, and leaves me with an ugly taste in my mouthat that it continues to be argued, like evolution still is.
Joan
April 10, 2005 at 12:56 am
28I guess my feeling about it is that I don’t think of a feeding tube as “life support” (others may disagree). I see withdrawing feeding not as discontinuing life support but as an assisted suicide. For assisted suicides, I think we should have a pretty high standard of proof of the patient’s wishes. Moral of the story for all of us: write those living wills!
There are, however, some people who go to the point of saying that even a solid living will should be ignored, because if the person had changed their mind since becoming incapacitated, how would we ever know? But really, I think we have to go with the person’s last testament.
Mike Z
April 10, 2005 at 1:32 am
29Joan - Does a feeding tube count as life support? That’s an interesting question.
Food does seem to fall into a more benign category than, say, an iron lung or something. But I guess that since food supports life, and Terri was never going to be able to get any without a surgically implanted tube, perhaps this could count as “artifical life support.”
Typically, we think of life support as a machine that supports some regular organ like the heart or lungs or something. This is artifical support of physiological functions. But if it’s the brain that has failed, then all the *behavioral* things need artificial support instead of the physiologcal things. Perhaps there’s a significant moral difference there, but I don’t see it.
—
Here’s a common thought experiment: consider these two scenarios
A) Your body is completely obliterated, but, luckily, advanced scientific techniques have saved your mind (i.e. all of your psychological traits and memories) and your mind can still function more or less like it did before (minus the body, of course).
B) Your mind is completely obliterated, but, luckily, advanced scientific techniques have saved your body, and it can still function more or less like it did before (minus the mind, of course).
In which scenario did you survive?
Landis
April 10, 2005 at 2:57 am
30I get your point, Mike, but in all honesty if I was in Scenario A (which seems to be somewhat like Schindler supporters were arguing) I couldn’t imagine a worse image of hell. Of course, that’s just me. Maybe others would enjoy permanently looking out on a world that they could have absolutely no interaction with.
Deno the Untergeek
April 10, 2005 at 5:00 am
31And many do Landis. Or at least it seem that way to me…
Brain death is death. Period . Without the mind, there’s not much there, a hollow machine that can’t even defend itself from hunger or thirst. The mind, however, isn’t entirely dependant on the body in the sense that the body is. Look at Stephen Hawking or the late Christopher Reeves. The mind defines *who we are* more than the body does. Terri was dead years ago. The ability to turn your head at a balloon doesn’t make you sentient. It’s unfortunate that politicians (including the doctors) failed to make that the basis of their decisions, and instead took the moral understanding that she was still alive and human.
What makes us human is our ability to reason. Terri didn’t have that at the end, no matter what DeLay and the others wanted you to believe.
Lynne
April 10, 2005 at 9:55 am
32Deno
I think, therefore I am.
Rene Descartes
Living in Florida, 2005 was not my first time at the Schiavo circus.
I cannot imagine how embarrassed Ms. Schiavo would be to have those images of her shown on television. The images from 2001, mind you, edited down to show that she could respond. Was Ms. Schiavo following the ballon or did Mr. Schindler follow her eyes? In the 2003 “Save Ms. Schiavo” fiasco, it came out that her brother, you know the one that was on television not stop-went to Congress, hadn’t seen her for seven years.
I don’t mean to run on but this was so disgusting. Even when the autopsy report comes out will the extreme right accept it? I doubt it. The facts get in the way of their truth.
Deno the Untergeek
April 10, 2005 at 2:18 pm
33Yes, they are white and they are right. Not to be racist, it’s just they are absolutists, and they are absolutely on the right side (politically too). It was Abe Lincoln who said, I hope I am on God’s side. None of this nonsense of God loves me more than you because I am right, which they prove with absolutely circular illogic. For shame that these are the elected (perhaps….) officials of the land.
adam
April 10, 2005 at 3:19 pm
34Mike Z -
Whether or not a feeding tube constitutes “life support” is an interesting question (I think it probably does), but it isn’t relevant to the legal argument here.
It’s already firmly established in Florida that patients can refuse medical treatment, including and specifically feeding tubes. That fact was considered in the various court judgments. So again - the decisions were based on 1) a decision concerning Terri’s wishes and 2) doctors’ evaluation of her medical condition.
As much as the Schiavonistas might want you to think it’s an “up for grabs” part of the case and reflects a judge’s spurious decision…. it isn’t and it doesn’t.
Pete in Van Diemen's Land
April 10, 2005 at 5:59 pm
35Maybe the Schiavonistas (like it, Centurion, like it!) are confusing living with being. And by extension, so do many of the pro-lifers. So is any existence better than no existence? Time after time after heartbreaking time, I can only see the answer as no.
Maybe some of the people who fight so loudly and emotionally for life at any cost would think differently if they were on the other end of that feeding tube.
I just know that if my lights are on, but the roof’s leaking and the walls are crumbling, I want that switch off at any costs. So why is wishing the same freedom for someone else somehow “against God”?
I also know that until these noisy, turbulent, misguided folks truly understand what life is, they will continue to fight for their glorified image of “life” at all costs.
Remember, they seem to be ready to equate Terri Schiavo with a blastocyst. If I had a brain capable of understanding that association, I’d be horrified… but then again, if I had the mind of a jellyfish, would I care?
Ibid
April 10, 2005 at 6:57 pm
36Her parents fought having the feeding tube removed for the simple reason that they can’t let go. Whether we’re talking about a daughter whose mind left years before or an elderly parent who will spend the next year either drugged out of his/her mind or in horrible pain before finally dying, it seems that most people today (I don’t want to actually say baby boomers) put their own selfish needs above those of their suffering family. They don’t think about others enough to realize the suffering around them. Their primary concern is denying their own mortality and delaying having to mourn the death of a loved one.
They’ll keep fighting assisted suicide laws until the bulk of the baby boomers reach the age where they ARE the suffering elderly and a quick death is what serves their own selfish needs.
I only hope that Terry really was a vegetable. The alternative is that she was awake and aware for the last 15 years, but unable to even control the motion of her eyes.
Jerry
April 10, 2005 at 8:01 pm
37Ibid - You have hit it on the head. I have enormous sympathy for her parents…but they desperately needed counseling and loving help to understand that her mind had been long gone, rather than quacks telling them that her random eye motions were signs of her cogency, and pols making time on this death gone desperately wrong.
Pete IVDL - The “people” that jumped on this bandwagon were the pols, who didn’t, in their hearts, give a flying fuck about Terri, Michael, her parents or brother, but just wanted (mistakenly as it turns out!) to make hay out of the dead, dry stalks of this personal tragedy.
I don’t know much about politics down under, except your current PM is known to Bush as “Mini Me” but I hope you have a more humane outlook on life, the nature of consciousness, and dying than we do.
Lynne
April 10, 2005 at 8:53 pm
38Jerry,
I have no sympathy for Ms. Schiavo’s parents. They sold the list of contributors who gave them money on their web site.
How many other patients were in the hospice, dying and they allowed the media blitz and the protests to go on outside of what should be a serene place? How could they associate themselves with Randall Terry?
Mrs. Schindler didn’t see her daughter from Easter until she was dead. It was too hard. Somehow, Ms. Schiavo’s brother and sister managed to make it in front of the cameras on the day that Ms. Schiavo died to ask for privacy; then they invited the press to the memorial service.
I know I seem harsh but the fact that they had a falling out with Michael Schiavo over the insurance money doesn’t put them in a good light.
And, I would humbly ask everyone to not refer to these people, especially Ms. Schiavo, with her first name unless you know her personally. Her privacy was already taken away with the circus that surrounded her death, can we at least grant her that?
hedera
April 10, 2005 at 9:05 pm
39Has anyone else read Ursula LeGuin’s Earthsea trilogy? In the last book, “The Farthest Shore”, the plot centers around a mage who has, or says he has, conquered death. And in the places where people choose to follow him, life has lost its meaning. Ged the Sparrowhawk, her hero, tells the young prince, “for a word to be spoken, there must be silence - before, and after.” In other words, without death, there is no true life. It’s a fascinating book; I can still go back to it.
And for the record, my grandmother spent her last 10 years immobilized in a bed by broken bones that wouldn’t heal (advanced osteoporosis), unable to recognize anyone (Alzheimer’s), kept alive by a feeding tube. Both my parents had living wills.
Rosie
April 10, 2005 at 9:28 pm
40Perhaps the real tragedy happened when Terri first became brain dead. The M.D.’s who sometimes think MD means GOD did not have the courage to be up front with the family. (I am a former ICU/CCU nurse.) If at the time Terri became brain dead they did not insert a feeding tube, and told her family what was really going on instead of giving false hope the tradgey would not have continued for 15 years. I know some doctors do not want to tell families the real truth and give false hopes instead. I am still amazed that Terri was starved to death. Wouldn’t it have been more humane to have given her an injection that would have caused her heart to stop beating. Do we not do that for our pets when the end is near for them? Do we not do that for condemned crimminals? Could we not have saved her family the grief of watching Terri starve to death? Do I believe in assisted suicide for those who are dying…yes I do. I think part of being human is to be humane and not selfish and righteous. It was a tragedy what happened to Terri but the real tragedy is what we did not learn from Terri’s ordeal. Wake up medical community and let your patient’s family know what is really happening to the patient. Families can deal what they know to be truths…not false hopes.
David
April 10, 2005 at 11:28 pm
41According to what I heard a nurse say on WMNF radio in Tampa, the way Terri Schiavo died is peaceful and humane. Apparently there is a body of research to support this contention.
hedera
April 10, 2005 at 11:57 pm
42David, I heard a nurse say something very similar on public radio in the San Francisco Bay Area, some weeks ago while they were still arguing about the feeding tube.
Jerry
April 11, 2005 at 12:55 am
43Your comment was submitted to Fanny The Robotic Rat for ingestion. Have a nice day.
Jerry
April 11, 2005 at 1:02 am
44Why am I getting that message when I try to comment?
Jerry
April 11, 2005 at 1:04 am
45…and why can I post these, but not another comment? Help
Mike Z
April 11, 2005 at 1:09 am
46Ratius ex machina?
Jerry
April 11, 2005 at 2:22 am
47Indeed Mike Z - it’s weird…I can post everything (apparently) except my response to Lynne
Jerry
April 11, 2005 at 2:28 am
48uggity boogity zoom ba ba.
Jerry
April 11, 2005 at 2:29 am
49Frannie won’t let me make a comment, but I can submit stuff like that with no problem!
Jerry
April 11, 2005 at 2:41 am
50Fannie.
Tom M
April 11, 2005 at 6:46 am
51Judical activism is nothing new. Even Habeas Corpus is a product of judical activism, coming, as it does, from the body of English common law, which was almost entirely made up by judges and precident without recourse to statute.
One of the things I most admire about the US system is the ability for the Judiciary to rule laws unconstitutional and void. If I could import only one thing from the US back to Britain, that would be it. I can’t actually think of anything else I’d want, but anyway, the point stil stands. As it is right now all they can do is rule that laws may be incompatible with each other, and then make a choice of which overrules the other in that particular case, or otherwise leave it up to parliment to resolve the ambiguity.
Mary
April 11, 2005 at 9:54 am
52To get back to Adam’s main point, my understanding of the “conservative” view (via my sister) is this:
1) Ms. Schaivo left no written instructions
2) Mr. Schaivo is not a “disinterested” advocate
3) A persistent vegetative state is not the same as ‘brain dead’
Therefore- the court should have made its decision based on the idea of ‘protecting the weakest among us’, i.e. Ms. Schaivo should have been allowed to live via feeding tube. They feel the judges were “activists” in allowing Ms. Schaivo’s husband to have ‘medical power of attorney’ and not recognizing that she was not “brain dead”. The later is the more important as they see this as opening the door to euthanasia of the sick and mentally impaired/brain damaged.
That’s the only rational part (IMHO) of her argument. I’m leaving my opinions and reasoning out of this.
Monty Zoom
April 11, 2005 at 10:31 am
53In Florida, the law states that the legal guardian of a person is their spouse. This issue boiled down to WHO can make the decisions for Terri. Every attempt to change guardianship was found against Florida’s constitution. The judges only had to decide on who was the legal guardian of Terri. Written wishes or not, Michael got to make the decision. No activism involved. The judges did their job. They may have not liked the outcome of their decision, but the law states that Michael got to make the decisions and he decided that Terri would not like to live like she did.
Johnnyboy
April 11, 2005 at 12:00 pm
54Mary,
I don’t think that’s the conservative point, at least not the real one. These are some arguments that were used by the right, but which do not reflect the real thinking behind this whole mess, which was: “Terry Schiavo is a minimally conscious but alive human being. If we could get a judge somewhere to say that her life must be protected at any cost, that would be more leverage to make abortion illegal. And if we can’t, it’ll just whip up some more frenzy in the troups.” Which is where we’re at right now with DeLay and his trash talking.
And by the way, the biggest evidence of judicial activism i’ve seen in recent history occurred in Bush v. Gore (2000).
David
April 11, 2005 at 1:06 pm
55Tom M,
Thanks for the reminder regarding common law. I tend to connect it to a common sense of what is just, which is, after all, the ultimate wellspring of the law as a codification of what ought to inform our common existence.
My favorite common law precept is the right to break a law in order to keep a more significant crime from being committed (cf. Amy Carter’s experience). Does require a jury to see it that way, of course, but then that is the great two-edged sword of the jury system and the right of a jury to rule according to its sense of justice
- but only in the direction of acquittal. The down side was all-white juries in the Deep South refusing to convict racist murderers.
adam
April 11, 2005 at 1:57 pm
56Jerry - Something in your email or URL must have triggered the spam filter. If you let me know what it was, I can fix it.
Mary - I think that is indeed the crux of the legal argument. But:
1) the lack of written instructions does not mean that the courts can’t make a judgment of the patient’s intentions. Which is what they did here, deeming Michael Schiavo’s testimony (backed up by several witnesses) to be persuasive.
2) See number 1. Terri is not presumed to be “disinterested” - it is in fact her orders that the court is allowing to be carried out.
3) The courts in Florida didn’t rule based on the idea that Terri was brain dead. Florida law is pretty clear about the “persistent vegetative state,” so the whole vegetative state vs. brain-dead controversy isn’t really part of the case. If the Schiavonistas don’t like the law, that’s hardly a case of “judicial activism.” It’s the opposite, in fact.
I guess your sister’s points underscore what I’ve been saying: All the judicial decisions were both well within the law and well within the role of the courts. There were no extraordinary measures, no crazy assumptions, not even any “new” interpretations of the law. The judges involved determined that Micahel Schiavo was a credible reporter of Terri’s wishes and that she was indeed in a persistent vegetative state. That’s it. Those were the two key issues that a judge really HAD to rule on in the case, and those were the two issues that WERE ruled on. Anything else would have been… judicial activism.
Isaac b2
April 11, 2005 at 2:30 pm
57I agree — hard to satirize this when it’s so tragic, and so pathetic how it’s being mishandled by the media.
Brooke Thomas
April 11, 2005 at 4:17 pm
58Adam
Great to read your stuff. As always I enjoy your insights.
Brooke
Jerry
April 11, 2005 at 4:53 pm
59Thanks, adam - but it has to be something in the body of the text. Even when I rewrote it, Franny jumped it. everything else (this) goes through fine. Gremlins.
Harold
April 12, 2005 at 6:57 am
60Jerry, if that’s the case, maybe you could try breaking the comment up into a series of words or groups of words and posting them in sequence until something gets blocked. Of course, if the offending thing is a phrase, and you break the phrase apart, it probably won’t get blocked.
Mary
April 12, 2005 at 10:36 am
61I’m with you, Adam. I don’t see any activism on the part of the judges.
It seems that the conservatives are just angry they didn’t get their way. Also, there are others who were hoping to use this as support to overturn Roe v Wade. Like the Bible, these folks only use the Consitution and Bill of Rights when it suits their purposes. When it doesn’t………
Jerry
April 12, 2005 at 12:21 pm
62Thanks, Harold, but unless I have problems inflicting my opinions on y’all here in the future, I think I’ll refrain from filling up the section with a series of nonsense (I mean even more nonsensical than usual for me) phrase-long comments. Interesting problem, but…
Pete in Van Diemen's Land
April 13, 2005 at 5:05 pm
63hedera, I have a dreadfully dog-eared copy of the Earthsea trilogy. When Ged found that the Dragons could no longer speak, his compassion (a very misunderstood word I guess) was heart-wrenching. Gont also sounds a lot like where I grew up! And no feeding tubes…
adam
April 13, 2005 at 5:27 pm
64hedera -
“The Farthest Shore” is an excellent connection, there (though somewhat tainted by the tragically awful Sci-Fi Channel series from earlier this year).
As I remember, the conquest of death had robbed life of its joys, words of their power, and the world of its magic. Interestingly, this was not just for the people who chose to follow the mage who’d “conquered death,” but anyone who had the misfortune of living in places where the followers lived.
… which should draw a hearty “yikes!” from all Americans. It’s unfortunate that nobody’s talking about the Sanctity of Living.
hedera
April 14, 2005 at 10:03 pm
65Since I don’t watch television, I managed to miss the tragically awful Sci-Fi channel series from earlier this year. Yet another confirmation that not watching the choob is the right choice; my mental images of Earthsea remain undimmed.
I’ve never forgiven whoever it was for the ridiculous mess they made of the Nero Wolfe TV series back in the day when I watched TV. They had Archie Goodwin wearing a SWEATER over a shirt and tie, and no coat. Ridiculous. Archie was a sharp dresser and wouldn’t have been caught dead looking like a college freshman.
And Adam, you remember “The Farthest Shore” correctly, and I thought of it constantly during the whole Terri Schiavo debacle. I might also quote Tolkien, who refers somewhere to (I think) the Numenoreans, “who hungered for life everlasting, and so lost it”…