UPDATE: This post to stay near the top until it is too late....

Thomas Jefferson believed to his dying day that the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional. He believed that the best way to accomplish his goal of westward expansion was through a Constitutional amendment.

When faced with the choice between doing what was right and what doing what he believed to be Constitutional, he chose what was right.

All those who are supporting the judgement of a Florida court to slowly starve to death a severely handicapped woman on states-rights grounds would do well to heed the example of Jefferson.

In the process of arguing the legal niceties of seperation of powers and federalism, a woman's life is being lost. With her life goes part of the humanity that characterizes the America that I know and love.

Often times morality is trumped by legality. That is part of the social contract. Unless we have respect for the rule of law we endanger the thin fiber of rules that keeps our society from plunging into the pits of anarchy.

However, when rule of law itself endangers the very purpose for which poliltical societies are formed--namely, protecting life--than those laws must be ignored.

Terri Schiavo's life is worth more than a thousand dissertations on federalism or the seperation of powers.

It is time to ignore the law.

One more example is in order. That of Andrew Jackson. Most Americans do not realize that there was a time when courts were routinely ignored by executive officials.

Let me paraphrase President Jackson.

A murderous Florida court, a spineless Florida Senate, a weak federal judge, and an impotent 11th Circuit have made their decisions. Now let us see them enforce them.

UPDATE: The Jump Blog notes that Lincoln also did several things he considered unconsitutional, yet necessary and right.

Good Richard's Almanac uses what is a natural law arguement, that is, to ignore what seems to be the law in this instance to uphold the higher intent of the law.

100 Percenter has similar thoughts.

Let me just add that going to an appeals court is the wrong strategy in this case. Appeals courts review law. In the Schiavo case the law seems to side with murder.

Appeals courts are generally reluctant to overturn a lower court's decision. This is a case where executive and legislative officials should simply ignore the Florida courts decision.

Governor Bush should not ask the court's permission to take custody of Terri Schiavo, he should simply take custody.

UPDATE 9:02: James Joyner calls this tactic kidnapping or legal kidnapping at best.

How is removing someone from the conditions which place Terri Schiavo in imminent death kidnapping?

What moral right does the hospice have on keeping Terri Schiavo?

This isn't a kidnapping attempt, this is a rescue attempt.

A rescue of a severely handicapped woman from those who would euthenize her simply because they feel she would have wanted it that way.

The judge that has refused the DCF's request to take custody of Terri Schiavo is the same judge that believes that Michael Schiavo should be the legal guardian of Terri. Despite the fact that Michael is in no way, shape, or form her husband.

Governor Bush ought to simply ignore Judge Greer.

A judge may issue an injunction, but who enforces injunctions? Judges do not have private armies. Judges do not have their own private police forces. Judges have no means of seeing that their orders are followed.

All this is left to the executive department.

And the Chief Executive of the state of Florida is Jeb Bush.

Ignore the judge, governor Bush.

Commissar, has some thoughts on the political angle as well. But I think he misses the mark.

I don't care that 60%+ of Americans don't like Terri's law. It's politically irrelevant. In next year's Congressional races what percentage of Americans will vote? 25%? 30%?

Which side sounds more politically energized to you at this point?

Again, federalism is an abstraction. Life is not.

UPDATE 10:45: U. S. SUPREME COURT REJECTS SCHIAVO CASE

As predicted, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the Schindler's appeal.

I understand the sentiments of James Joyner's comments here. When politicians routinely disobey the law, this can lead to a state of anarchy--or worse.

Tyranny has resulted from ignoring the law in the past, and presumably in the future.

In fact, the example I used above of Andrew Jackson illustrates the point. Jackson ignored a ruling by the Supreme Court which granted the Cherokee nation the right to remain in Georgia. Jackson's willful disregard for the law lead to the trail of tears and to the death of thousands of native Americans.

On the other hand there is the example of the Supreme Court in 1854 when they ruled that Dred Scott did not have standing to sue because people of African descent could not be citizens.

How is this any less tyrannical?

When Northern governors, legislatures, and judges simply chose to ignore those laws designed to return escaped slaves to their rightful owners in the South, was this tyranny?

But so far this has been an argument about the meaning of the word tyranny.

If Lincoln and Jefferson's disregard for their understanding of the Constitution was tyrannical their actions certainly were the lesser of two evils.

Further, in the Schiavo case there are real differences of opinion about what the law is.

Congress and the President believe Schiavo's rights have been trampled by a Florida Court. The governor and legislature of the state of Florida believe Schiavo's rights have been trampled by Greer's court.

Constitutional interpretation is not solely the province of the courts. I argued as much in this post here.

When the courts and every other branch of government disagree over Constitutional interpretation, why should the court's will trump?

Obeying the courts is not necessarily the same thing as obeying the law. To say so is to grant the courts a power in which they never were envisioned to have.

If Governor Bush disobeys the court, and I believe he should, there is a remedy. But that remedy is not a judicial remedy, it is a legislative one.

It's called an impeachment.

I'd like to see the Florida legislature try to attempt to impeach Bush over this. It aint gonna happen.

Blogs for Terri is urging Governor Bush to take action now. I agree.

Governor Bush's email: jeb.bush@myflorida.com
Phone: 850-488-4441
Fax: 850-487-0801

UPDATE 11:30: Ann Coulter gets it and proves she is a Jawa Report Reader (via Michelle Malkin). My earlier post on why Constitutional interpretation is not solely up to the courts is here.

As a practical matter, courts will generally have the last word in interpreting the law because courts decide cases. But that's a pragmatic point. There is nothing in the law, the Constitution or the concept of "federalism" that mandates giving courts the last word. Other public officials, including governors and Presidents, are sworn to uphold the law, too....

President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The court's ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived.

If Gov. Jeb Bush doesn't say something similar to the Florida courts that have ordered Terri Schiavo to die, he'll be the second Republican governor disgraced by the illiterate ramblings of a state judiciary. Gov. Mitt Romney will never recover from his acquiescence to the Massachusetts Supreme Court's miraculous discovery of a right to gay marriage. Neither will Gov. Bush if he doesn't stop the torture and murder of Terri Schiavo.

When it comes to the protection of life, decency, fairness and American values in general, liberals dismiss the will of the people, preferring judge-made law. But when death, destruction, and indecency are in play, suddenly the will of the people is paramount. I got a kick out of reading the rambling posts of liberal bloggers pontificating about “the rule of law.” It was hysterical.

But if I'm not mistaken, Conservatism is not built on a single guiding principle. Yes, federalism is part of the conservative movement.

But from it's foundations Conservatism has also rejected the notion that the Supreme Court is the last word on Constitutional meaning.

The last time I checked, Judge Greer was, er, you know, a judge. Jeb Bush, on the other hand, is the governor.

The Schiavo debate is not just about federal courts intervening in what is properly a state court issue.

The Schiavo debate is also about who will have the last say in what the law means.

Will it be our elected officials, or will it be 'the least dangerous branch'?

UPDATE 12:00: Judge Greer admits error.....OpiniPundit wonders how many more of these there could be.

UPDATE 1:00: Chris Short chimes in "Don't step on my Constitution."

But I'm not sure why a governor exercising his Constitutionally delegated powers could possibly be construed as to be acting unconstitutionally?

Unless we buy into the myth of judicial supremacy, that is......

And I should have linked this earlier, but go check out Wuzzadem. That's pretty f*cked up right there.

Scott Ott:

The interim ruler of Florida, former Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge George Greer, today promised to appoint a new "people's legislature" in the wake of a coup which overthrew Gov. Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature.

While Gov. Bush and "pro-life" legislators have not yet fled Florida, helicopters are reportedly standing by.

On a related note there have been a lot of stories about polls showing support 60% to 80% support for keeping the courts and/or the government out of this messy family affair. A lesser publicized statistic is that 80% of Terri's immediate family wishes that the courts not order that she be killed by starvation.

1:25: IT IS OVER. (via Matt Margolis)

A circuit court judge denied Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's request to take protective custody of Terri Schiavo (search) on Thursday, perhaps spelling the end of the protracted legal battled over how the severely brain-damaged woman ought to die.

The decision by Judge George Greer, who has consistently ruled that Schiavo did not want to be kept alive artificially, was not surprising, though it came two hours later than expected.

Greer had earlier barred the Department of Children & Families in an emergency order from taking custody of Schiavo.

We have reached the end.

Terri Schiavo, may you Rest in Peace.

UPDATE 4:00: It is too late now, but I see the judicial supremacy angle is catching on. See my new post here for an ellaboration.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:23 AM | Comments (54) | Add Comment
Post contains 1869 words, total size 13 kb.

1 "It is time to ignore the law." And personal choice too, apparently. Consider this..... Geneticists have identified the portion of the human genes that contributes to the death of cells. In the next fifty years, we could discover a medical treatment that could halt cellular degredation indefinately. That might not extend the life of an entire human (mental degeneration could contine), but it could mean that we could keep the *body* alive for 50, 100, 200 years on life support. The question I have for people who advocate recinding Terri Schiavo's rights to manage her own life is: "When do *I* have the right to end my life?" With feeding tubes, respirators, heart/lung machines, we can just about keep a body alive indefinately NOW. What you apparently propose is that NO ONE should be given the right to end their life but instead we should all surrender our life, and death, to Daddy Government. I know that may be a stretch, but I hope you get my point - it is my body, my life, my death. I don't trust the government with my money, why should I trust them with my life? Terri's husband (yeah, I know he's not a *great* husband) is her legal guardian. He is carrying out the wishes of Terri, not the Florida court system. They are both, however, honoring his right to carry out Terri's wishes. On the subject of Michael's guardianship, in just about every case where a person is injured and cannot defend their interests, the police *immediately* suspect the spouse. The police and the district attorney looked HARD for evidence that Michael was involved in Terri's injuries. No indictment, no trial, no arrest. The jury in Michael and Terri's lawsuit against her doctor found in favor of the Schiavo's. They believed that the doctor was negligent for not recognizing Terri's eating disorder and that he should have treated her for it. The insurance carrier would be looking HARD for any evidence that it was not their fault but Michael's. To date, they have not asked Michael to return the money. The courts do not automatically trust someone who claims to be working in the best interests of the afflicted. They will often appoint a guaridan ad litem until the courts have weighed the evidence to make certain that the injured party will be entrusted to someone who is going to act in the afflicted's best interest. They did that in Terri's case. He came back and confirmed the diagnosis of other physicians that showed Terri will never recover. The court listened to all sides and granted guardianship to Michael. They would have NEVER done that if there were any doubt that Terri wanted to continue living on life support in her condition. So in light of all that evidence and judgement, you want to defy the legal decision of a state court just because you don't like the law? I thought "conservatives" were the law-and-order type. I guess that only applies to laws you *like* "Most Americans do not realize that there was a time when courts were routinely ignored by executive officials." One more example of how Republicans prefer to shred Constitutional protections to futher their own narrow interests. You guys sound like Democrats. Republican != conservative

Posted by: bodybagger at March 23, 2005 06:01 PM (cjCfM)

2 When did the finding that Terri have an eating disorder occur? Since you seem to know, what were the circumstances of that "investigation"? What were the conditions that led them to conclude she had an eating disorder? Just curious.

Posted by: jordy at March 23, 2005 06:24 PM (7y04D)

3 He is carrying out the wishes of Terri, not the Florida court system. Is there any real evidence of that - isn't his statement hearsay? There's a lot of evidence and affidavits that he's not. In the next fifty years, we could discover a medical treatment that could halt cellular degradation indefinitely. And if we kept her alive the same could be true for her condition. But we could also discover what causes cellular degradation without finding an easy cure, and given this pro-Death precedent make it permissible to preemptively eliminate the defectives, to remove those defective genes and their gene-carriers from the gene-pool.

Posted by: -keith in mtn. view at March 23, 2005 06:28 PM (sE9R7)

4 "When did the finding that Terri have an eating disorder occur?" 1992 "Since you seem to know, what were the circumstances of that "investigation"?" There is a website set up for Terri by her family that contains some of this information: http://www.terrisfight.org "What were the conditions that led them to conclude she had an eating disorder? Just curious." She suffered from bulima that lead to her heart attack. This is covered at the website as well.

Posted by: bodybagger at March 23, 2005 06:34 PM (cjCfM)

5 >>He is carrying out the wishes of Terri, not the >>Florida court system. "Is there any real evidence of that.." Yes, testimony by Michael and friends of Terri. " - isn't his statement hearsay?" No, hearsay would be testimony given by someone who heard Michael talk about what Terri had told him. Testimony by first-hand witnesses is direct testimony. "There's a lot of evidence and affidavits that he's not." That he is not, what? >>In the next fifty years, we could discover a >>medical treatment that could halt cellular >>degradation indefinitely. And if we kept her >>alive the same could be true for her condition. "But we could also discover what causes cellular degradation without finding an easy cure, and given this pro-Death precedent make it permissible to preemptively eliminate the defectives, to remove those defective genes and their gene-carriers from the gene-pool." I guess I don't get your point (other than a tangential attempt to link euthenasia with the right to of an individual to determine the outcome of *their* life). Are you saying we should all be kept alive indefinately because medical technology *can* do it? I reject that notion and would call that a "pro-Cyborgian" position. As for the "pro-Death" comment, if you have a way to avoid dying, perhaps you should share it with the rest of us. Otherwise you are just as "pro-Death" for not sharing your wisdom and allowing us to live forever.

Posted by: bodybagger at March 23, 2005 06:41 PM (cjCfM)

6 Dude- I rarely go out of my wat to compliment another for an individual article. But- you hit the nail on the head- very well written. Thank You.

Posted by: HundredPercenter at March 23, 2005 06:48 PM (bPVCX)

7 This whole story is very sad. I think the question should lie in what the individual wants, that is why a living will is very important. I, personally, would not want to be kept alive by a feeding tube, were I a vegetable. I would trust my spouse with making that decision over my parents as I have directed her, and she has a legal right to do. What does Terri want? That's a big debate. So, is Terri a vegetable or severly mentally handicapped, to the point where she doesn't have the motor skills to feed herself? Does anyone know, truthfully? Where do you draw the line? Do you believe the doctors and the financially-burdened husband or the parents who desperately want to hang on to their daughter? Who will continue to pay for Terri's life support? I tend to believe that this is the quality of life that Terri wanted to aviod, when advising her husband on her wishes to not be kept alive artificially, as he claims. While the husband may be motivated financially to end Terri's life, it may just be what she has wanted all along. We don't know that the husband is lying about Terri's wishes. I guess it boils down to whether you believe that letting a person die is the equivilent to murder. If that is what I believed then my 99 year old grandmother would be on a respirator now. Rather than letting her die peacefully, with my family at her side. What happened to Terri is tragic. But people all over the workd die before an old age. I agree that life is precious and should be protected, but death is a part of life. God gives and takes life on this earth. Because we have the technology to sustain life for decades beyond the natural span, doesn't always mean we should use it. There is a reason why states have powers delegated to them. While I am a Republican/Conservative, I agree with Bodybagger on this one. Although, the "shred Constitutional protections to futher their own narrow interests" comment is way off.

Posted by: grafxdude at March 23, 2005 06:49 PM (We+Em)

8 "Dude- I rarely go out of my wat to compliment another for an individual article. But- you hit the nail on the head- very well written." I hope you are referring to me when I say "You are welcome". Cheers.

Posted by: bodybagger at March 23, 2005 06:52 PM (cjCfM)

9 Dr, S, Your post put my feelings into words. I feel a sense of loss. 62% of my countryman feel this is just and right. We as a country have lost something, ... a woman who was a burden and not any use to us. Only loved by her family and those Americans in a small minority. We can be defined by how we treat such people. I have lost the faith I once had in the goodness of the American people. Who would have thought that the love for a country instilled by 15 years as an Army brat,the values shared by a good patroitic family could be shaken off me in a week.

Posted by: Brad at March 23, 2005 07:11 PM (NzgK/)

10 "God gives and takes life on this earth." Not any longer. 50 years ago, Terri would have been dead and this whole exercise would never have happened. 50 years from now, you may linger for decades beyond your normal lifespan unaware of the life passing around you. At that point, the cyborgs-proponents will have won.

Posted by: bodybagger at March 23, 2005 07:44 PM (cjCfM)

11 "62% of my countryman feel this is just and right." When it comes to respecting individual liberties, I don't put much stock in polling numbers. "We as a country have lost something, ... a woman who was a burden and not any use to us." This is the point that bothers me the most in this debate. "Not any use to us"? What about Terri? Doesn't she get input into this discussion? If Terri had said that she wanted to live *no matter what*, I would be arguing to keep her alive. This isn't about lack of compassion for a woman who cannot speak for herself. It is a matter of respecting the wishes of those who DON'T view the end of life the same way as Jerry Falwell. "Only loved by her family and those Americans in a small minority." If these people truly love her, they should let her die as she requested. "We can be defined by how we treat such people." Indeed. I put my stock in the individual making choices for themselves. Everytime the government intercedes, they take opportunity and responsibility from all of us. Nothing can be more degrading and dehumanizing than that selfish act.

Posted by: bodybagger at March 23, 2005 07:51 PM (cjCfM)

12 blah blah blah judges should follow the law. blah blah blah well maybe its not that simple.

Posted by: actus at March 23, 2005 08:55 PM (5Lqt9)

13 Rusty: "It is time to ignore the law". To this commenter, that's like the skirling of the pipes to a highland jacobite! I'm with you, laddie. The law is a tool of justice, and like any tool, it can be misused with tragic consequences. There is not a tincture of justice in starving this woman to death under any circumstances, and if the law says so, then, "the law is a ass!". If I were Governor Bush, I'd get her out of there, consequences be damned. And yes, all you pettifoggers out there can argue procedure, and separation of powers, and federalism all you like; as far as I'm concerned, you're like the actors in "Rope", cracking on about philosophy while dining over the dead man in the chest.

Posted by: D. Carter at March 23, 2005 09:11 PM (4+WsX)

14 "blah blah judges should follow the law. blah blah blah well maybe its not that simple." Stunning debating technique. Perhaps you could put a bit more flesh on the bone.

Posted by: bodybagger at March 23, 2005 09:27 PM (cjCfM)

15 "There is not a tincture of justice in starving this woman to death under any circumstances, and if the law says so, then, "the law is a ass!"." How unfortunate it is that you are willing to surrender your rights so easily. I think we should attach generators to the feet of the Founding Father's bodies so that we can generate electricity from them spinning in their graves. We might as well get *something* from the jettison of our civil rights. Soon we will have to ask Daddy Government for permission to die.

Posted by: bodybagger at March 23, 2005 09:31 PM (cjCfM)

16 If you google "Scumbag Michael Schiavo" you get at least 23 pages of listings. Judge Greer is as bad as the husband.

Posted by: vivi at March 23, 2005 10:07 PM (nTEvo)

17 PRO DEATH CULT OF EVIL The demonic entities dancing on our tv screens drowning in the money sent to cable companies and record companies and the republicrat parties squeal with delight at the death of the presumption of life as a right. Not only unborn babies, but now finally the living can be slaughtered- praise satan. These unspeakable bastards jump from position to position in support of evil. Kill the innocent unborn. Protect the guilty killers. Kill the weak and defenseless. Protect the slaughtering rapist dictators from US aggression. The Bush Boys have lots of men with guns that could stop the starvation of this poor woman at any second... but they do nothing... why?

Posted by: ADMIRAL Rusty Shackelford at March 24, 2005 12:15 AM (52xqN)

18 "With her life goes part of the humanity that characterizes the America that I know and love." Amen. FYI, the law and constitution are actually on Terry's side. One question all medical care providers can answer is the scenario of what happens when you come up on a situation with a person unconscious and unresponcive and not breathing, one family member claims the person would not want any help and would want to die, and another says please do everything to help, and there is no living will or DNR? The correct answer was said best by our President, "If we are to err, it should ALWAYS be on the side of life." You do everything in your power to promote life.

Posted by: Mr E.M.T. at March 24, 2005 12:21 AM (H9Ilz)

19 "But people all over the workd die before an old age." Yes. As a matter of fact, everyone who is deprived of food and water dies within a couple of weeks. Excellent post, Rusty.

Posted by: John from WuzzaDem at March 24, 2005 12:29 AM (Pt3Le)

20 I think most of America has no clue, no idea, of what it's like to be in this position. I also don't think anyone has ever walked into a room of a person who is brain dead - ie vegetative state. At the age of 27, the last thing Terri would be thinking of, is a living will, so she'd she something on tv or out on a walk and chatting with her husband, she'd tell him how she felt about living in such a situation. At the time, living wills and donor cards were just starting. So the only person who would know what she felt and what she wanted would have been her best friend, lover and that man would be her husband. There are thousands of cases like this throughout the country and we don't hear about them because they didn't have parents who splashed it all over the front pages and now all over the friggin internet. They won't even show you pictures of what she looks like today so all I can tell you is to think of Karen Ann Quinlin. Yes, her brain stem still functions. The only thing the brain stem does is breathing, body temperature and blood pressure. Just because that grape sized thing at the base of the neck still functions, does not mean she does. She is brain dead and probably noticibly seen over the the last of the 15 years she has been in a vegetative state. You can thank Medical Science for this conundrum. I was 24 years old when I had to make the decision for my husband to be unplugged. At one point, even Terri was in that condition. Again, over the past year, I had to push that decision through on my father because I knew this was not what he wanted. He did have a Living Will but you also need a DNR - a do not resuscitate order. And if you've been resuscitated, you have immediate shut down. Even with a living will, they will monitor your brain activity for three days before they will again, shut you down. They are also not telling you the complete story. She is not being starved to death and without fluids- even though that is the case. She is heavily sedated just in case - one of the benefits of being in a hospice. Back when I did my thesis on eutanasia for college (in my mid thirties), I learned even more than I had after I was 24. (That situation caused me to go out and get a living will and a DNR). You would be amazed at the lengths some people have gone through to die - and most of them without dignity. Many were not brain dead but their brain stems were dead or almost dead. Perfect example: ALS There was a woman who actually had herself removed from her hopital bed, brought to a motel, so she could starve herself away. Starvation is incredibly painful. Although they have not said it and would probably deny it, Terri is heavily sedated. No one is that cruel and I'm sure her hospice is seeing to her care. Trust me, they didn't close the door and walk away; she is indeed being cared for. I doubt she feels anything but they'll do it anyway for the sake of the families and that of Terri. Now if she were not in the news CONSTANTLY and was not in the news over the past years because of her parents, her husband could bring her home and arranged for her to have a shot - not unlike those they get on death row and her ending would have been quick and over in ten minutes. But too much notice about this situation has been given, so they did not have the option. All that's left is the option to starve and remove fluids but let me tell you from studying, from example, from knowledge, she is not suffering even if she could feel suffering. So instead they make this really big deal about her starving to death - not even having water without telling you the entire truth. For some one who has been in this state for 15 years and over the last 7, completely brain mush, is indignanty for her and for her family. Her family has to move on now; they need to let go of their daughter and let go and start living for themselves right now. They have put off their lives for over 15 years and if anything was going to happen, it would have happened by now. So what they need to do is get along with her husband, plan her final body goodbyes and then focus on living their lives without Terri. If they hadn't made such a big deal over it, they could have quietly let her die by the lethal shot which really lasts at most 5 minutes and no one would even know the difference. She doesn't know the difference now and she never will. It's time for this country to move on - this stuff if happening every day. She's not in a coma, but in a constant vegetative state from being brain dead. It's way past time to say goodbye. And her family and spokespeople are going to make it worse than it really is. There is just so much you do not know. This can be reproduced anywhere. Thank you Cindy

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at March 24, 2005 01:16 AM (PEKrh)

21 Let me just say a couple of things to bodybagger. Terris Schiavo's brother-in-law is not 'her family'. Her husband is not 'her family' either. No rational person could consider him 'her husband' given that he is living with another woman and raising a family with her. Terri's real family, her mother, father, and siblings, do have a website. http://www.terrisfight.net/

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 24, 2005 08:29 AM (JQjhA)

22 kid·nap·ping noun : an act or instance or the crime of seizing, confining, inveigling, abducting, or carrying away a person by force or fraud often with a demand for ransom or in furtherance of another crime

Posted by: James Joyner at March 24, 2005 09:49 AM (UjbiU)

23 Your an idiot. People like you are no better than the radical muslims who wish to make us believe in their faith. As long as we believe in your ways and you get what you want, then the laws are ok. If they don't reflect your religous belief, then their not. Yes it is time to take action. It is time take our country back from religous zealots like you who wish to save the world and make us all think the way you do. The Bush crusades must be stopped.

Posted by: GP at March 24, 2005 10:26 AM (Mx7Zh)

24 "Terris Schiavo's brother-in-law is not 'her family'." Actually, I never said they weren't. But you knew that. "Her husband is not 'her family' either." Then according to your logic (cough!), neither is my wife. Wonder what that means for my kids? "No rational person could consider him 'her husband' given that he is living with another woman and raising a family with her." No rational person would hand custody of Terri over to people who would keep her alive without regard for her wishes. Keep advocating State control over our lives, Rusty. You will get what you wish. "Terri's real family, her mother, father, and siblings, do have a website. http://www.terrisfight.net/" Thanks for the duplication. Had you read my earlier comments you would have seen that URL yesterday.

Posted by: body bagger at March 24, 2005 10:27 AM (cl1Cw)

25 I have had an American flag in front of my home forever. Just took it down about 10 minutes ago. For how long, I don't know. Right now,it seems to represent Bodybager,GP and others I violently disagree with. I don't expect people to share my faith. I don't have the goods to represent it in forum like this. Too many smart people around these parts. Anyway, most people just want to see posts they agree with. I just want Terri to live and be cared for by her parents.No one had to buy my faith hook, line and sinker. Just let the girl live and be cared for by the parents who love her. I could not believe we were capable of just killing her. Now I believe it. This is a watershed event in my life. I wonder if many others feel the same.

Posted by: Brad at March 24, 2005 10:46 AM (M7kiy)

26 Political capital: the right to convert the personal tragedy of a private citizen into a public circus in order to confirm the prejudices and prosecute the agenda of religious fundamentalists.

Posted by: James Cameron at March 24, 2005 10:50 AM (vVsL3)

27 "And yes, all you pettifoggers out there can argue procedure, and separation of powers, and federalism all you like; as far as I'm concerned, you're like the actors in "Rope", cracking on about philosophy while dining over the dead man in the chest." If Terri had told her husband and three friends that she would have wanted to stay alive at all costs, regardless of the possibility of her ever recovering, I would be siding with those who wish to keep her alive. Personal liberty is the issue, not whether Terri *should* or *shouldn't* die. She expressed her wish and those who want to keep her alive *at all costs* are the villians for not respecting her autonomy and wish to live outside of State controls. We should not consider Terri a victim, but hero for personal liberty.

Posted by: Body Bagger at March 24, 2005 10:55 AM (cl1Cw)

28 "I just want Terri to live and be cared for by her parents." But that isn't what Terri wanted. You seem to be missing that point. As I noted in my post above, had she wanted to stay alive, you and I would be fighting together against those who view her life as "not worth living". Terri's wish was to avoid a life on medical devices, unaware of life passing by. It is not *our* place to want anything more, or less, than for her wish to be honored.

Posted by: Body Bagger at March 24, 2005 11:03 AM (cl1Cw)

29 We could argue this endlessly but I believe it is you who miss the point. There is no living will. You nor I have no idea what her wishes are. Just the word of a husband who 7 years after the accident managed to remember her wish to die. You would kill on these grounds,I would not.

Posted by: Brad at March 24, 2005 11:29 AM (M7kiy)

30 Dude, if Ann Coulter is agreeing with you, I guess I'll have to reconsider....

Posted by: James Joyner at March 24, 2005 11:50 AM (UjbiU)

31 Now you're just thinking with your....well, you know.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 24, 2005 11:53 AM (JQjhA)

32 Brad, I'm with ya, 500 %. I have lost faith in our country, our government, our people. I can't believe how many people think letting her die is the right thing to do! If this were the case, WHY NOT GIVE HER AN INJECTION LIKE THE DEATH ROW INMATES GET? End it, but no! That would be murder! But, letting her starve to death is a natural way to go? Had she been on a respirator, and that were removed, she'd be gone in a few minutes. I can understand something like that. As for the husband, this scumbag ADMITTED HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TERRI'S WISHES WERE. He also waited 7 years AFTER Terri became disabled, to suddenly proclaim her "wishes". Why is everyone giving up on her? How was she able to stay alive all these years, and now, everyone is denying her life?? I don't get it. The best solution is for Shiavo to hand over Terri to her family. He should relinguish all rights...actually, he did, when he shacked up with that broad and fathered two kids with her. Isn't that adultery? Can't the parents sue him in her behalf for adultery and get legal guardianship? Fuck it all, I"m so disgusted. This sounds like Nazi Germany...get rid of everyone who's no use to us, who cannot fend for themselves. Just like Hitler did.

Posted by: Laura at March 24, 2005 12:09 PM (L3PPO)

33 Laura, would not have believed this a week ago. This headline says it all for me..."PROTESTERS ARRESTED TRYING TO BRING WATER TO SHIAVO"

Posted by: Brad at March 24, 2005 12:41 PM (NzgK/)

34 I know Brad..sigh....and some of those protestors were CHILDREN, with their parents, trying to give her water! Looks like Jeb Bush has lost the fight to get custody of Terri. Tell me this: didn't Shiavo relinquish any and all rights to make decisions as Terri's legal guardian when he decided to commit adultery and father two illegitimate children???? Can't the parents sue him for divorce in Terri's defense and get guardianship? What a country! Arresting people for trying to give aid to those who are unable to fend for themselves. We've gone back 100 years.

Posted by: Laura at March 24, 2005 01:43 PM (L3PPO)

35 "Stunning debating technique." This is a debate? I think its pretty clear that laws have been followed and applied very straightforwadly by the judicary. And the people who are the type to say 'judges should follow the law' are now singing a different tune.

Posted by: actus at March 24, 2005 01:47 PM (Eg4/w)

36 "You nor I have no idea what her wishes are." Several courts disagree with you. "Just the word of a husband who 7 years after the accident managed to remember her wish to die." Yeah, the courts have been stacked against Terri from the beginning. They just accept the word of anyone off the street that Terri wanted to die. You are right. The testimony and trials were just a sideshow with a predetermined outcome.

Posted by: Body Bagger at March 24, 2005 01:49 PM (cl1Cw)

37 GODDAMN IT ALL! THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE THE HUSBAND'S WORD FOR IT! NOTHING IN WRITING ON TERRI'S PART. THEY SHOULD ERR ON THE SIDE OF LIFE, AS BUSH SAID, YET WAS POWERLESS TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. WHY ARE THEY JUST NOW TAKING SCHIAVO'S WORD FOR IT AFTER ALL THESE YEARS? IF IT WAS SO CUT AND DRIED, TERRI WOULD'VE DIED A LONG TIME AGO. MAY THOSE WHO MURDERED HER ROT IN HELL, ALONGSIDE THE TERRORISTS BIN LADEN, HUSSEIN, ZARQAWI, WHEN THEY ARE DEAD.

Posted by: Laura at March 24, 2005 02:02 PM (L3PPO)

38 "This is a debate? I think its pretty clear that laws have been followed and applied very straightforwadly by the judicary. And the people who are the type to say 'judges should follow the law' are now singing a different tune." We are of a similar mind on this topic. Terri's rights should not be trumped by those who believe she should live *at all cost*.

Posted by: Body Bagger at March 24, 2005 02:02 PM (cl1Cw)

39 "GODDAMN IT ALL! THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE THE HUSBAND'S WORD FOR IT!" Not just the husband, but a few of Terri's friends too. I guess this is just some secret cabal out to off Terri, right?

Posted by: Body Bagger at March 24, 2005 02:04 PM (cl1Cw)

40 "We've gone back 100 years." HUH???? This is an individual case that was decided by medical and legal experts over many years of deliberations, discussions, legal proceedings, etc. This type of situation has nothing to do with nine-month old children, (Rusty, shame on you for even considering your child as part of this debate) or paralyzed geniuses that can communicate their feelings, it is solely about the feelings of a woman that were expressed to her husband and friends and finally her will to not live in a vegitative state will finally be realized. "WHY ARE THEY JUST NOW TAKING SCHIAVO'S WORD FOR IT AFTER ALL THESE YEARS? IF IT WAS SO CUT AND DRIED, TERRI WOULD'VE DIED A LONG TIME AGO." They are not "just now" taking Schivo's word for it. The court battles considering this as well as all the information started many years ago. Now is the time for the final decision, which has come. Body Bagger is right on the money in this.

Posted by: js at March 24, 2005 02:32 PM (SgW7r)

41 I honestly don't know what I would do if I were her guardian and was not able to be guided because there is no living will. What an agonizing decision. God Bless Terri Schiavo. May Easter bring us all peace. I said a prayer for her and she is in God's hands now. As Jesus ascended to heaven, may Terri follow.

Posted by: greg at March 24, 2005 02:38 PM (/+dAV)

42 "As Jesus ascended to heaven, may Terri follow." That is the nicest thing I have seen written about Terri's death to date. Happy Easter.

Posted by: Body Bagger at March 24, 2005 02:48 PM (cl1Cw)

43 The law got involved because of her parents but they have separated themselves from this UNLEGAL situation. The husband is doing the right thing --- after 15 years of her downward spiral to brain death. Time for everyone to move on. Cindy

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at March 24, 2005 02:49 PM (PEKrh)

44 The husband should have been removed from any rights when he decided to commit adultery and father two bastard children with the broad. Right then and there, he gave us his wedding vows and should have given up guardianship of Terri as well. NO ONE REALLY KNOWS WHAT TERRI'S WISHES WERE WITH NOTHING IN WRITING. How many times should I say this??? With nothing to prove it, which the courts love to have written evidence, I don't understand how they could take Schiavo or any of his people's word for it against Terri's family, NOTHING WRITTEN, NOTHING GAINED. GET IT?

Posted by: Laura at March 24, 2005 02:57 PM (L3PPO)

45 "NO ONE REALLY KNOWS WHAT TERRI'S WISHES WERE WITH NOTHING IN WRITING" Except for the people she conveyed those to. No one who claims this has anything to gain from continuing to say it. You can bring up the rights to malpractice or life insurance money but I doubt there would be much of that left after years of medical care and attorney fees. Regardless of how much there is, I doubt it would be worth subjecting yourself to this level of scrutinty and malice from people who have no real understanding of the entire situation. I don't claim to know anymore about this than anyone else, but I do have faith in the system and firmly believe that it worked.

Posted by: js at March 24, 2005 03:25 PM (SgW7r)

46 I'll be like Johnnie Cochran..."if it don't fit, you have to acquit"...in this case, "no will, no kill".

Posted by: Laura at March 24, 2005 03:33 PM (L3PPO)

47 Yeah js, the system worked great, didn't it? After all, OJ got away with murder too!

Posted by: Laura at March 24, 2005 03:35 PM (L3PPO)

48 It's not judicial supremacy there Dr. Johnny Come Lately. This has been up and down the court system and only now do people chime in and begin there protests. Sorry, Congress is wrong to trample on the laws of states. Do me a favor and listen to Mark Larsen's show tomorrow. You can get previous days and current broadcasts at his web site: http://www.themorningmagazine.com/ He's been covering this story for as long as it has been going.

Posted by: Chris Short at March 24, 2005 07:34 PM (pfkIQ)

49 Well, Bodybagger, As for that official "court appointed guardian", you apparently didn't read much of his report. The crux of it reminded the court that Michael Schiavo's legal guardianship was severely compromised by a major "conflict of interest" and that he stood to gain financially from Terri's death. (Of course, by now, we all know the award money earmarked for Terri's rehab has been spent on lawyers to engineer Michael's wishes that his "wife" dies.) And how do you know she is "brain dead"? If experts aren't allowed to examine her extensively or conduct more modern tests, and nurses' testimony is ignored, it seems to me that the brain dead here (and hard of hearing) are those who seem so eager to see this woman die so that "their side wins". I'm a pro-choice and right to die supporter. But this is a ghastly violation of civil and human rights, and a monumental failure of, not just "the system", but of people thinking straight. Seems to me we may as well as have those other robed Iranian mullahs ruling "ex cathedra" for all the worthless judges we have. Ah, yes, the Good Ol' Boys will put the little woman away. This is the USA???

Posted by: RJ at March 25, 2005 02:37 AM (zW4/k)

50 First of all, Michael Schiavo spent a large sum of money trying to rehab her. Check your facts. 53 docs are saying she is brain dead. 1 doc with a fake Nobel nomination that's listed on QuackWatch isn't a good enough answer for me. You can blame the courts all you want but you're still wrong.

Posted by: Chris Short at March 25, 2005 05:27 AM (pfkIQ)

51 God's law always trumps man's law, a point our ever-increasingly atheistic society tries to ignore. In a few days, Terri Schiavo will likely die, killed by starvation through the power of the State. At the same time, several thousand American babies will also be slaughtered by abortion, with the full backing of state, local, and federal government. This is the "fruit" of a "liberated society."

Posted by: Michael at March 25, 2005 08:29 AM (8ufRy)

52 Michael, In addition to babies being "slaughtered by abortion", the death penalty will be carried out and American troops and innocent civilians will die in a war manufactured by lies. In the spirit of Easter, I pray that American "Christians" will find a consistant stance when it comes to issues of life or death and find Peace. As Jesus ascended to heaven, may Terri follow.

Posted by: greg at March 25, 2005 09:28 AM (/+dAV)

53 "As for that official "court appointed guardian", you apparently didn't read much of his report." Which one? I read the report by guaridan at litem Dr. Jay Wolfson who is a professor of public health and law at the University of South Florida. "The crux of it reminded the court that Michael Schiavo's legal guardianship was severely compromised by a major "conflict of interest" and that he stood to gain financially from Terri's death." Care to cite the name of your infamous "guardian"? Wolfson was not asked to render a judgment on Michaels's capacity to act as guardian. The courts did that. "(Of course, by now, we all know the award money earmarked for Terri's rehab has been spent on lawyers to engineer Michael's wishes that his "wife" dies.)" Yeah, you certainly have this all figured out. Did you get this from Fox News? "And how do you know she is "brain dead"?" Medical tests. How do you know when you have cancer? "If experts aren't allowed to examine her extensively or conduct more modern tests," Check out Dr. Wolfson's curriculum vitae. He is both a doctor of medicine and a lawyer. Now mind you, I don't go for appeal to authority arguments. But I do trust the judgment of professionals to speak about issues in their discipline. I understand Rusty earned the title of doctor of philosophy. I read in one post that he studied political science. I would trust that he has done extensive study in the field of political science and that he has authored and defended a dissertation. That makes him a subject matter expert. I wouldn't necessarily trust him to render judgment on the proven reserve capacity of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge because I don't think he has spent enough time looking over the apatite fission track data. I have. So when Dr. Wolfson has made a diagnosis regarding Terri's condition, I trust he is making a sound medical judgment. It is always advisable to get a second opinion, and Terri's family has done just that. So have the Florida Courts. "..and nurses' testimony is ignored," Over that of a physician? Sounds like a conspiracy to me. "..it seems to me that the brain dead here (and hard of hearing) are those who seem so eager to see this woman die so that "their side wins"." Well, you definately have greater powers than I. How you can assess a person's ability to hear through their posts on a blog is nothing short of a medical breakthrough. Write me and I will send you an address where you can publish your results. "I'm a pro-choice and right to die supporter." Except in Terri's case. "But this is a ghastly violation of civil and human rights, and a monumental failure of, not just "the system", but of people thinking straight." High-falutin words without substantive evidence. "Seems to me we may as well as have those other robed Iranian mullahs ruling "ex cathedra" for all the worthless judges we have." Beat that strawman. Beat that strawman. Beat that strawman. "Ah, yes, the Good Ol' Boys will put the little woman away. This is the USA???" I'm sure that is the exact phrase used by McVeigh and Nichols after Ruby Ridge. Republican=Democrat without guilt

Posted by: bodybagger at March 25, 2005 10:42 AM (cjCfM)

54 "...a point our ever-increasingly atheistic society tries to ignore." Ever-increasingly atheistic society? What planet are you living on? Note the source of the polling data below - not exactly a 'bastion of liberalism'. If what you say about atheism is true, then the data should be EXACTLY opposite of what it reports. -------------------------------------------- FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. March 1-2, 2005. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. "Do you think it should be legal or illegal to display the Ten Commandments on government property?" Legal: 77% Illegal: 14% Unsure: 9% Unfortunately, this type of idiotic expression of victimhood is not confined to just one branch of Abraham's progeny.

Posted by: bodybagger at March 25, 2005 10:54 AM (cjCfM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment