Plum Crazy

Congress is constitutionally invested with the authority to decide the jurisdiction of Federal Courts, this is not subject to debate. They did precisely that in passing the Schiavo bill law. It was never ruled unconstitutional in any court proceeding. It never will be.

Furthermore Congress exercised another of it's constitutional investitures when it issued those subpoenas... liberals who obsessively mistrust and continually thwart popular will (Democracy) and all it's institutions not withstanding.

Assorted proxy for the privileged and elite in their flowing gold-brocaded vestments--who in fact are NOT 'independent' but one of three federally integrated branches of a Republican government with iron-clad checks and balances on it especially--chose to contemptuously defy the Supreme law of the land in both instances.

It's obscenely non-sensical to argue the founding fathers intended an UNELECTED lifetime-appointed entity to be 'independent' from elected bodies subject to removal by popular will.

Gee, why not just a star chamber or Politburo?
Those have been tried and they didn't really work out all that well in Bolscheviek and Stalinist Russia now, did they?

Nothing like a nice impeachment and good long Federal prison term to humble those who would disenfranchise the common man at any and every opportunity.

It's either that or at some point Jefferson's remedy.

Guess I'm a bully too... and so are James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.

Do you think judges are politics free now? Do they always issue impartial rulings?

Of course not.

Judges don't rule this country, the people do. What the hell gives judges the right to dictate public opinion and policy? A law degree? I'm afraid not. Judges need to be reminded who they serve and how the three branches of our government work. If Tom Delay can accompish that, than great. If not, it's up to the people to do it.

There are three remedies that the legislature has over the judiciary - revision of the law, amendment of the Constitution (state or federal), and impeachment. I don't particularly think that Congressional hearings should be held in this case. IMO, the proper remedy in this case is to rewrite the Florida law to clarify it.

Nonetheless, impeachment of judges is a proper function of the legislature.

As for legislatures, however, much more disturbing to me is how many states have laws on the books that allow doctors to override living wills. Why that isn't a big rallying cry is beyond me. If someone has a living will requesting that he/she be kept alive, in most states, doctors have the ability to override that. Not family members. Doctors. Why have our legislatures invested doctors with that kind of power over our lives?

The Terri Schiavo case became a tragic national circus because she did not make her intentions clear in a living will. That aside, in this instance "the popular will" was clearly against congressional intervention, as evidenced by the results of polls.

The courts are not supposed to be free of oversight. There has been too little oversight in some cases, but not the Shiavo case.

There are two recent rulings where I think SCOTUS ought to be hauled before a congressional committee, sort of a shot over the bow before impeachment hearings are held.

Most recently the case where they ruled the death penalty for criminals, who commit capital offense before they reach the age of majority, is cruel and unussual. the legal wranglings taken to reach that verdict were downright awful.

The second case where I find deplorable ruling was the upholding of the McCain feingold incumbant protection act. Of course if congressiol opponents had the balls to vote no rather than appeasse Saint McCain or if Shrub had had the balls to veto a bill he called unconstitutional that ruling would never have had to happen. Sadly those that thought the bill was bad law counted on SCOTUS to make the correct ruling and voted to appease Saint McCain.

I think doctors have to be able to override living wills in some instances.. but I also think state legislatures or governors should have a veto power.

When medical science advances to the point that resources devoted to increasing the quality of life for the 'sort of living' demonstrably reduce the quality of care for say a nine-year old kid with Leukemia, then an objective and authoritative remedy has to take into account the best interests of society.

And no that's not Germany circa 1937.

I agree, no legislative hearings are necessary. The egregious abrogation and contempt of the oath these judges swore, there arrogation of powers to which they are not entitled, is so evident we should be able to move straight to impeachment and confinement.

No lowly Superior Court Judge in Pinellas County gets to amend the constitution without 38 state legislatures or constitutional conventions behind him.

If this were a civil rights case involving some inviolable sacrosanct minority, liberal elitists would be screaming 'bloody murder' that this self-deified shithead took it upon himself to override the invested authority of the most important and democratic civil institution this country has, thereby undermining the security of the Republic itself.

How long do you figure the millions of people who already feel disenfranchised in the extreme are going to put up with a mostly unelected imperial judiciary that so often sees to the interests of the few at the expense of the many? If something in the interest of a few is not in the best interest of the many, there is never an instance when it should prevail by any moral or legal authority. The founding fathers knew this, that's why they were so meticulous about investing only that authority in Government that was absolutely necessary, even then providing "the people" a means of taking it away through popular will.

I think this is going to have to be taught the hard way to Americans. It was once before.

PS: Without taking sides in the actual case, I have to inform the person overly confident in CBS ABC et al, that those supposed gauges of popular opinion were all skewed ridiculously and inaccurately; half the morons polled thought she was on life support and comatose, not awake and being fed intravenously--which hundreds of thousands of hospital patients are every day! Does that mean we kill them all too?

Polls that were done subsequently and stipulated the precise circumstances of Terri and her condition, overwhelmingly supported the parents.

All -

I never said that the courts should be free of oversight or that judges shouldn't be subject to impeachment. Certainly, if judges act or rule recklessly, then there should be action against them. My post speaks only of this case, in which I feel that that DeLay's comments are motivated by a political agenda. The appropriate remedy, as both Lesley and I point out, is legislative changes.

Jon, in case I have been missunderstood, I am not accusing you of claiming judges don't need oversight, I apologize if I left that impression. I agree that in this case there was more than enough oversight and appeals and reviews and especially political gamesmanship.

What I was trying to do was point out where I think oversight was/is needed.

The Shiavo case boils down to what some feel is inadequate law in the state of Florida, and I suspect the legislative process will move to satisfy those on that side of the argument. The judges acted properly in accordance with the state law. The last minute federal law, IMO went to far, and should have been tossed out of court. Is it right to write a national law so specific to one person, especially since the legal matters in her case was not unique to her. And what about those legal considerations make them a federal matter?

Jim, I'm sorry, but your rant is preposterous. Nothing the judge decided was outside the bounds of already established law and precedent.

1. Right to refuse medical care. It clearly states in the Florida law that a person has the right to refuse medical care, including the insertion of a feeding tube. Don't like the law? Change the law.

2. Right of the "next friend" to determine the person's wishes should the person be incapable of making his/her wishes known and did not do so prior to the event which rendered him/her so incapable. Happens every single day. Family members often refuse care on behalf of a family member. Don't like it? Petition your legislature to write a law or amend the state constitution.

3. Status of husband as "next friend" over parents. Do I even need to explain how long this precedent has existed? Again, don't like it? Rinse and repeat.

Could the judge have found otherwise given the facts of the case? Sure. He could have found that the husband and other witnesses did not satisfactorily establish Terri's wishes (from a legal standpoint, not an absolute one). Nonetheless, the decision he did make was absolutely 100% in accordance with the law as written by the legislature and long-established precedent. And had he decided that the husband and other witnesses did not satisfactorily establish Terri's wishes from a legal standpoint, that would have been absolutely 100% in accordance with the law as written and long-established precedent too.

As for the law passed by Congress, in the event that is what you're referring to, please note it did not require the feeding tube be inserted. It just never said it. Even the legislative history indicates that certain members of Congress merely hoped the courts would so find, but stated that the courts could find otherwise. So they did what Congress asked, reconsidered what they were petitioned by the parents to reconsider (namely just reinserting the feeding tube), and found against its reinsertion. If no one puts a petition in front of the court to reconsider something else, should the courts reconsider that nonetheless? In any other circumstance, even you would recognize how ludicrous that would be.

Read the text of the law and the damn Congressional record about the law. If the judges had made their decisions based on something Congress had NOT written, that would be true judicial activism. Making a finding based on the actual text of the actual law? Nope. Again, if you don't like the law, the proper remedy is to CHANGE THE LAW. Not to impeach judges for making findings within the law as written by the legislature.

Oh and by the way, thanks for feeling you have the right to decide for me when my life has reached a level of quality that it's no longer worth living. As far as I'm concerned, however, that right belongs to me and my family. Not you. Not society. Not a bunch of doctors. What you just wrote basically boils down to there being a "duty to die" at some point (and for society!), a concept I am profoundly uncomfortable with. So I'll be exercising my rights to try to change the laws.

I made no comments that should have been construed to suggest I found fault with any judicial interpretation of Florida law. I don't frankly have time nor the inclination to try to figure out what people in the Elian Gonsolas Jeb Bush Hanging Chad Terri Schiavo Kenny Rogers Florida Orange Juice x-tra marital affairs and assorted tabloid newspaper cosmetic surgery lecherous NE patricians in summer bungalows state do. Don't care much either, except when it affects me. The further dimunition of power in the legislative branch of the federal government--the most humble and answerable to the people of the three by far--is of sobering concern to me. I have had it up to here with elitism in this country.

A woman who is dead or in frail health brought on by starvation cannot obviously answer a congressional subpoena. Now if you can show me where in the subpoena there was any kind of language supposing passive neglect was permissable to thwart that subpoena, I might agree with you.

As for the law that was passed, it stipulated a De Novo (I think that's how it's spelled, I'm not going to look it up) hearing, which I'm under the impression means almost the same thing as a new trial. What it is absolutely not, is strictly a mandate or suggestion to review prior testimony and proceedings.

The hearing never occurred. My understanding is the legislation did not 'advise' the courts they could claim jurisdiction, it did not 'suggest' they claim it, it COMPELLED them to if petitioned by the parents, which they were. If there was not a mandate that there be some sort of hearing on the merits, then clearly these critters in the beltway condescended egregiously to their socially conservative base--which very frankly would not surprise me.

There did not need to be (although there should have been, and that's a pox on these supposed pro-life stalwarts like Rick 'bu-bye' Santorum who are either too stupid or too serpentine--in his case I think it's stupid--to understand how liberally activist judges machinate, e.g. you can't leave them even a sliver of an opening) any specific language about re-inserting any feeding tube for any nincompoop to know a good faith effort to implement both constitutionally permissable excercises mandated re-inserting the tube to sutain her life and ability to be party to the proceedings.

None of these magistrates with hearts to match the color of their imperial vestments will probably be impeached, but there are grounds for it and they should be.

As for living wills and allowing doctors to over-ride them in very select circumstances (I'd never support it unless the circumstances were very clearly delineated and there were also a mechanism by which the doctors could be contravened), it's a very tough call ... especially since mine evidently puts me in the majority, where I'm not always comfortable for obvious reasons.

Your comments were unclear. To whit:

"I agree, no legislative hearings are necessary. The egregious abrogation and contempt of the oath these judges swore, there arrogation of powers to which they are not entitled, is so evident we should be able to move straight to impeachment and confinement."

Now, being someone who doesn't read minds, it's a bit hard for me to ascertain whether by that you meant the original court proceedings or the reaction to the bill passed by Congress. Which is why I covered both in my comment.

Since you have now clarified, then I will tell you that the bill did not require the courts to perform a de novo review ex a suit being brought by the parents against another person who was either a party to the original State court proceedings or who acted pursuant to a State court order. If the parents did not bring such a suit, then it is hardly the fault of the courts. What the parents specifically requested was that an emergency order be granted for the tube to be reinserted while they got ready to pursue those broader claims. In those circumstances, the courts ruled based on what the parents petitioned for, taking into account the likelihood of success of the broader claim to be brought later. You might not like it, but that is their job. If you disapprove of their job description, the proper remedy for that is to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. Not to impeach.

You may be right, I have not actually read the law. It would not surprise me to learn the Schindlers lawyers missed the boat.. even Randall Terry said they were out of their element, which apparently is church.

If you are right and the law was so badly written that even the lawyers couldn't understand it, then heads should roll in the beltway. They won't because fundis and pro-lifers are generally ignorant and naive.

I was always under the impression the courts simply chose not to recognize the constitutional authority of Congress to regulate their jurisdiction(s). If it can be demonstrated that was never contravened, it lets some select magistrates off the hook. There should still be hearings.

I don't see where you effectively addressed the subpoena issue however. Saying the subpoena didn't specifically require the re-insertion of the feeding tube--I'm pretty sure in any event it stipulated any and all reasonable measures be taken to enforce and assist compliance--just doesn't cut it.

This is a perfect case for Congress to look at in deciding on any judicial reforms.

And how bout them Yankees!

Sorry, couldn't resist putting that above the fold :)

Just think, if I were a Red Sox fan you could chant '1918, 1918'..

oh wait..

Hang on. There was no subpoena called for in the Schiavo bill. I didn't address it, because I thought the passive neglect you were referring to was on the part of the husband, not the courts, so I didn't see what it had to do with impeachment.

The subpoena you're thinking of was issued a day or two prior to the bill being passed. The subpoena was then challenged in court and rejected. In response to its rejection, Congress then passed the Schiavo bill. We all know that Congressional actions are subject to court review. The subpoena received court review. It was not "passively neglected".

Dude, if I were a Red Sox fan, I'd be chanting "2004".

Fortunately, Darth Boss George has now turned his attention away from his new pony back to the important things. You know, making sure the Yankees win!

BTW, amazingly, I'm about to defend Congress here on the Schiavo bill. Not because I think they should have passed it. I don't. But because Jim is criticizing the way it was worded.

1. If the bill had required the tube be reinserted, it wouldn't have passed unanimously. It would have been vigorously debated and, perhaps, even defeated.

2. I'm fairly certain Congress could not stipulate a de novo review ex a suit being brought by the parents, as Congress has no standing in the case. It stipulated that the parents did have standing (to prevent a court from finding they did not) and, so, could bring the suit. I can't see anyway any court would have recognized Congress as having standing to bring the suit. Imagine the precedent that would have set. Congress being given standing to bring suit in a family dispute? That would be frightening.

Interesting back and forth on the legal merits, blah, blah, blah...

The point remains, as originally stipulated, that Delay and the other Congressional toadies who jumped on board this issue were trying to interject themselves into a family issue that had already been heard, and decided, by a wide variety of state and federal courts, up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States, over the last fifteen years. Their only reason for doing so was to pander votes from the religious right. They deserved to get their collective noses bloodied.

Curious that when Howard Dean promises to use this issue against the Republicans in the next election, he is accused of politicizing the issue. Lots of pots calling the kettles black these days.

If Congress has the legal authority under the United States Constitution to compel witnesses before it, then obstructing or even failing to support a congressional subpoena--if you're an officer of the court or any kind of government official--is an impeachable offense. Simple as that.

I think Congress did go to court to get the subpoena enforced. The petition was in fact either rejected or the court voted not to entertain it, I don't recall, but it doesn't really matter. That's a weak point because Congress only petitioned after it was quite obvious the judges on the state and federal level were going to ignore it until the issue was moot. Congress would not have petitioned the court if time had been on their side. They would likely have looked for a remedy through the executive branch, since it does fall on the President to enforce the law and Constitution... not the Circuit Court in Atlanta as is commonly believed.

That the Appeals Court got it wrong doesn't in any way absolve the judges who compeled the venue as a means of dragging the issue out long enough to accomplish their desired ends--kill Terri Schiavo and further erode the power of the people through their ELECTED bodies.

Most of the judges, no doubt, being the arrogant elitist wretches they are, thought the issue would be rendered moot if the woman at the heart of the matter would only croak.

Their very potentially career-ending mistake was in not recognizing that separation of powers as laid down in the Supreme Law of the Land is never ever moot, regardless of the fact a disabled woman with an extensive brain injury who might have been helped by stem-cells is no longer around to argue that (I'm still not taking sides).

A judge does not have to necessarily 'violate' the law outright to be impeached. The magistrate is still very much in contempt of the oath he took if he merely flouts or neglects it. Lawyers and judges may argue otherwise--wonder why--but the nice thing is only the lawyers and judges in the United States Congress have anything to say about it.

As to jurisdiction--'standing' for all intents and purposes--Congress does in fact very much have that authority.

If Congress has the legal authority under the United States Constitution to compel witnesses before it, then obstructing or even failing to support a congressional subpoena--if you're an officer of the court or any kind of government official--is an impeachable offense. Simple as that.

No, it's not. Congressional actions, ALL Congressional actions, are subject to court review.

As to jurisdiction--'standing' for all intents and purposes--Congress does in fact very much have that authority.

Congress has jurisdiction to pass legislation that could seek to prevent future disputes (and not on everything, anyway, as some matters are reserved to the states as per the Constitution). It does NOT have standing to enter a suit against your father if you happen to have a dispute with him over a private matter. Please. There is a huge difference between "jurisdiction" and "standing".

And with those facts, I'm done with this conversation. I'm not going to get into a huge back and forth over facts.

No, it's not. Congressional actions, ALL Congressional actions, are subject to court review.

Well, one last thing. Until you can get the Supreme Court to overturn Marbury v. Madison or amend the Constitution to nullify its effects.

Jim, you can rant until the cows come home about what an arrogant, elitist wretch Judge Greer is and how you feel he should be removed from office, but I'll tell you now, it won't do any damned good - he has already decided to retire at the end of this term rather than stand for (what amounts to) re-election. See, his position is basically elected, and every six years he has to be voted on by the people whether to be retained as a judge or not. So whine and cry all you want, he is and has been kept in office by the will of the people. Congress and the state legislature grandstanding and pandering to the religious vote all they will, he did what was right and what had already been reaffirmed by the courts, up to and including SCOTUS, almost a dozen and a half times in the last 15 years.

Part of the problem is people like you and the members of Congress and the state legislature who never even heard of Terri Schiavo until this all hit the national news in a big way and have no idea what has been going on with this case for the last fifteeen years, and still don't, and won't listen when people try to tell you. The courts have consistently reaffirmed the husband's decision to remove the feeding tube, the Department of Children and Families has consistently reported that Terri was well looked after and there were no signs of abuse (and just issued another report this last week), the doctors for both the state and for Michael Schiavo agreed there was no upper brain function and no hope of recovery - her brain had atrophied and all that was left functioning was her brain stem, which handles autonomous functions like breathing and heartbeat, and much of the space where the rest of her brain would have been was taken up by cerebral fluid (even without the results of the autopsy, this has already been borne out by MRI, x-ray and EEG results). I can't blame her family for holding out hope until the last breath was gone, whether for reasons of faith or religion or whatever, but there was no reason, none, for the state legislature, the governor, the US Congress, or Tom by-god Delay to jump into what was, and remains, a family matter which had already been resolved by the courts. Their only justification was to suck up a few brownie points with the religious right, with the added benefit, for Delay, of distracting the public from his ethics problems.

I don't care about the political motivations and I don't care about Greer--who was at least elected--as much as I do the Federal Judges who defied Federal Constitutional law.

Congressional acts are subject to judicial review, I'm well aware of that.

The impeachment clause is for those cases in which Judges have abrogated their oath to faithfully execute the law, which they did here under the guise of 'judicial review'.

There is absoltely no permissable way for an officer of the court to violate the US Constitution, whatever the proceeding or supposed legitimacy. Nothing can exculpate them or provide cover.

Anyway I'm busy with Victor, he could use the help of some of you libs by the way.

Here Lesley chew on this...

"Most of my fundi friends (yes, believe it or not, I really do have fundi friends) have no interest in politics of any variety, be they left, right or center, on the theory that any government that ever existed obtained it's authority only through the will of God, so they see no point in participating in the process, let alone using it to inflict their personal morality on the nation at large."

Presumably this applies to the Third Reich. According to Victor 'fundis' who are indifferent to such 'divinely ordained' institutions are less contemptible than those who aren't.

Incidentally I was referring more to obstructing the subpoena as grounds for impeachment. By no judicial review can any court obstruct a congressional subpoena, constitutionally.

Why should I chew on something Victor said? Have your arguments with Victor with Victor. Don't have them with me by proxy. If I want to argue with Victor, I know where to find him. There are reasons I don't visit that "where" anymore.

"You libs...?" You must have me confused with someone else.

And, like Lesley, I have my reasons for not visiting there as well. Comments like that have summat to do with it.

he basically said any belief which supposes the Holocaust was orchestrated or ordained by God is unworthy of contempt or even concern (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt he didn't endorse the proposition itself).

but if that's okay with you, if your antipathy toward me supercedes such a foolish, assinine and frankly ominous comment, far be it from me to intercede.

I understand your reasons for not going there, but I merely made you privy to an argument (all I was really looking for was your take here, since you don't bother answering me anymore by email or IM). It really doesn't--nor do I--deserve to be dismissed like that, but so be it. I'm through humbling myself.

Thanks for being kind when you were.

not that I mean to divine divinity myself, but it's an assumption that shouldn't be made lightly, especially by formidable men and women.

now I'm done.

I don't agree with what he said, but I still can't for the life of me figure out why you're dragging me into it. I don't have this blog to pass tests foist upon me by others.

So I'm not going to argue about it with you, especially since I don't agree with its premise, but neither am I going to head over there and argue against it with him. I repeat - There are reasons I don't go there anymore.