This may be the end of the road for Terri. Her parents had their hopes dashed again today when the 11th Circuit, after a middle of the night statement that they would hear the case, turned it down 15 hours later.
There is something wrong with this interpretation of the Constitution (from above link):
Birch went on to scold President Bush and Congress for their attempts to intervene in the judicial process, by saying: "In resolving the Schiavo controversy, it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people - our Constitution."Does our Constitution give the judicial branch higher standing than the other two branches? Does it say that we should lie down like dogs in front of the judges, worshipping their rulings? Does it say that their law should be the law of the land, higher than God's law, higher than morality, so that if they rule that a disabled woman should be cruelly left to die of thirst and hunger the other two branches should quietly acquiesce?
4 comments:
This is terrible. Both Judge Greer and the Federal Judge who snubbed his nose at the legislation passed by Congress ordering a "de novo" (?) review of the facts should both be held in contempt of Congress and impeached.
Congress could have passed a law that said "all Judges must stand on thier head when in session" and they would have to obey. That is becasue the Judges are there to enforce law created by the people, and they, like us, must also obey that same law.
They don't get to pick and choose which laws they want to obey and which they don't.
Terrible, absolutely terrible. And the worst of course, is that Terri hasn't the time to wait for the right outcome.
This action of judges snubbing their noses at the laws Congress and the President pass is the first step in the deterioration of our three, equal, branches of government into one all-powerful judiciary.
This has got to stop. The House of Representatives should initiate proceedings against both these judges. Write your Rep!.
If you'll sign this petition at Vote for Judges, I'll get a copy to your Rep.
Well, I'm not ready to start voting for judges. I grew up in the great State of New York, where the parties all agreed on some bozo for judge and the guy ran unopposed. Thanks, but no thanks.
Still, I agree there's a real problem in the judiciary. And Birch's separate opinion is insane. What? Congress can't provide by statute that there is no exhaustion of remedies, that courts should not abstain, etc.? I can understand constitutional concerns about a bill limited to a single case, but it's perfectly OK to pass a law regarding one case (so long as Congress doesn't tell the courts how to decide it). It's perfectly proper for Congress to provide a rule of law that the courts apply.
"de novo" (?) review of the facts
Per Secret Agent Man's analysis of the statute (which I find compelling) the law was never intended to be a de novo review of the facts, but rather a de novo review of the procedures used at arriving at the facts. It seems the GOP knew this, but whether they did it that way b/c they thought the chances of a Constitutional challenge to the law would be diminished, or they only wanted to create the appearance of trying to help, I don't know.
Post a Comment