Schiavo Spin Doesn't Wash

Persons sentenced to death by any state automatically get Federal court review, there's no need for Congress to get involved. Did Terri Schiavo deserve less legal protection than convicted murderers?

 

This is, of course, a false analogy.

The state of Florida, in the absence of advanced directives, gives this decision to the spouse. Certainly we don't suggest that the federal government intrude on the sanctity of marriage, do we?

If, as you suggest, federal review should be a part of this process, then Congress (the Republican-controlled Congress) can write a law requiring it. I don't see Delay, Hastert, or Frist taking that action. Why not? And what about all of the other families facing these decisions? Where is our leadership when it comes to those? Nowhere.

This was a blatant grab at publicity and it backfired. Frist, for one, is in a big hurry to put it all behind him. No doubt. The American public was squarely against this action by the Republicans, and they'd just as soon see it all go away. Fine with me. The courts and the medical community acted in good faith and remarkable accuracy. What the federal government accomplished was but to extend the anguish felt by all involved. Congratulations.

 

The state of Florida has also given its courts the decision to execute convicted murderers, yet they automatically get Federal court review.

A Florida court, in effect, sentenced Terri Schiavo to death. Was she not deserving of the same protections as someone like Ted Bundy?

 

I've always thought it was too bad that none of Ted Bundy's victims was able to cut his nuts off and watch him bleed to death. That would have been deserving of not just an acquittal but an actual medal of honor.

 

The Terry Schiavo case was reviewed by more judges than I can recall over its 10+ year lifetime. How many judges from each side of the political aisle have to make a ruling before our politicians get the message? The system worked and the protections in placed worked as well. She had no chance of recovery. A good doctor like Frist (I googled his record, I have no doubt he was an excellent and respect surgeon) knew that and yet he thought it would be a good political move to use it to further his quest for the Presidency. Frist is wrong - I think a lot of the conservative states rights Republicans will remember his ploy.

 

So, I will assume the next time a bill is filed to limit Federal appeals in death penalty cases, it will have your full support?

 

Re: Re: Schiavo Spin Doesn't Wash

When did I say my opposition is "evil" or "unintelligent"? Certainly, Bill, I agree that my opposition is often deceitful--then again, I know of more than a few conservatives who are deceitful as well.

I also believe that my opposition is occasionally ignorant; for example, I honestly believe that Rich was ignorant about the difference between "brain dead" and "persistently vegetative"--many otherwise educated people are similarly confused. But ignorance and confusion are not in the same county as stupidity. Do I think Rich is unintelligent? Stupid? Are you kidding me? The guy's got a PhD--he likely would dust me on an intelligence test. And you might as well, as might any number on this forum.

If you want to talk about being deceitful, you need to be careful here, because what you've done in your own accusations don't quite ring true. In other words, you responded to me based on what you thought I was saying or thinking, but not actually what I said or think. And you put words in my mouth and attributed thoughts to my head to support your argument.

That's wrong and unappreciated.

 

I have always thought that convicted prisoners have far too many rights and we need to put a cap on federal appeals. We do need the checks and balances, but there has to be a point where we have a stopping point.

Come on! I even support the chain gang for convicted prisoners (noticed I said "convicted". I don't believe that just because you were arrested that you are guilty - that is only for a court to decide).

Personally I like the Arizona Sheriff who put tents out in the desert. He sends the right message, if you don't like it, don't come back.

 

Well, Jerry, you're ignorant also. She was not "brain dead", and that was never clinically demonstrated. Further, just to clear you up entirely, "persistently vegetative" does not equal "thinks with all the capacity of a turnip". It's just a rather unfortunate term for those with very limited cognition who are not brain dead. It's a term, incidently, that many medical professionals consider misleading; it's hotly debated among many in the medical community.

Please, Jerry, before you start referring to someone's starved and buried daughter as a pet to be watered--a plant--mind your terminology and educate yourself.

Now, just so that no one gets in a huff--pun intended--I never said that Jerry was "stupid", "unitelligent" or what-have-you; I just said he was "ignorant"--which he is. Or was, provided he's read this post.

 

My lands, qvatlanta, we agree on something. This forum and this topic would be much better without all the touchy, sweeping ad hominem attacks.

 

Fine, I can respect someone who is consistent, no matter what their polticial leanings are. What puzzled and annoyed me were the people who acted like Federal court review in the Schiavo case was the end of civilization as we know it, while those same people support endless Federal appeals for death row inmates.

 

Well, two things going on here.

1. If I am not mistaken, in the absence of a living will or medical power of attorney, the law usually gives medical decisions to the spouse, and I'm not sure the law makes distinctions as to whether on is merely an "ipso facto husband" or "the most nominal of husbands." On the other hand, since Ms. Schiavo was incompetent, her parents could have filed for divorce in her behalf and then the medical decisions would have clearly been theirs to make.

2. As to creeps like Ted Bundy, I think it is terrible that it took ten years to kill that b*st*rd after all the women he killed. I happen to hate him not just for what he did but also because he had the same first name as myself. But even so, in the rush to rid the world of such monsters, I think we need to remember that some (not necessarily all) of the people that get convicted are factually innocent and some of those do receive the death sentence. And, for those, we need to allow all possible avenues of appeal. The Founding Dudes set up the system with the prosecution having the burden of proof because, among other things, the state normally has far more resources than private individuals. So, if we did "limit" appeals, how limited would they be? Couldn't we limit them in time (if not in extent) by putting up a "radar" or "red flag" that says, "Beep! Beep! Death penalty case coming! Top of the stack!" Then said defendant could still have full rights of the appeal, even to the Supreme Court if necessary, but it wouldn't take 10 years to decide whether to "fry 'im or free 'im," like it did with Ted Bundy.

 

Like calling people "ignorant" and "liars"?

 

What bothered me about this was the way that the Bushs et al tried to use this very sad situation as political fodder. It was pathetic, especially the doctor doing his diagnosis for purely a self serving political agenda.

 

Interesting idea, my thought is to limit Federal appeals to two. The US Circuit Court of Appeals for that area, then the US Supreme Court. I think two bites at the apple is plenty.

Of course, the case will have made the full round of appeals at the state level before even getting to the Federal level, so in reality it's much more than two bites.

 

I don't think there was any political agenda, unless the agenda involved making themselves unpopular. Every poll I ever saw showed that the majority didn't think Federal intervention was necessary, so if anything, Bush and the Republicans in Congress were fighting for what they thought was right.

 

Or they over-reached, a common symptom of a second term.

If they're interests were truly for the patient, why now? Why this case? Did they have to wait for this very public case?

The fact is, they were wrong. They were wrong about Schiavo, they were wrong about the law, they were wrong about violating their own principles (states rights, sanctity of marriage, rule of law, activist judges, etc.), they were wrong about federal courts intervening, and they were wrong about the public's reaction.

Of course, it couldn't have come at a better time for Tom Delay, as he himself noted.

 

Personally I think it was more complex than that and I do believe most of what they were doing was based on their beliefs.

 

Rich, calling you ignorant and/or a liar was not ad hominem on my part. It was my honest opinion of your statement that she was "brain dead".

You were either:

1). Ignorant of the term (which I think was the situation here);

2). Knew the term precisely but were using the incorrect one to gain rhetorical advantage, which is, at bottom, lying;

or,

3). As a third possibility that I haven't previously listed, you were neither ignorant nor blatantly lying about it, you just being very loose with your terms. The third possibility, though, is so close to the second in its disingenousness that I think I can accurately collapse the two.

Rich, words and phrases have meaning, and "brain dead" was the wrong phrase there; it was neither accurate nor honest under the circumstances.

Now, as to ad hominem. The definition of ad hominem is not giving strong, even harsh opinions of one's position, such as telling you what I think you're saying is a lie or born of ignorance. That was my honest--and I think this thread would bear out as accurate--take. But it's not ad hominem.

Ad hominem would be if I said: "Well, Rich is a big fat slob", or "Rich is a little skinny weasel" (I don't know what you look like). In other words, it's a personal attack having nothing to do with the matter at hand. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore make frequent use of ad hominem.

But whether or not you're telling the truth or ignorant in a given debate has everything to do with the matter at hand--we cannot engage in a meaningful debate if we cannot agree upon the meaning of terms. So it's just not ad hominem. Possibly invective, as it was a strong attack upon your position, but not ad hominem.