Atrios has dug up an interview with a legal expert from CBS News which discusses the implications of Congressional interference in the Schiavo case.
QUESTION: So the years of state-court litigation would be wiped off the map, as if it never took place?ANSWER: If Congress gets its way, yes. That's why the legislators in Washington put the words "de novo" into the legislation, so that the federal courts would not be bound by anything the state courts in Florida had done. Terri Schiavo's parents still would have to convince the federal judge that her rights are being violated, and they would have to have the medical evidence to back that up (which they did not have in the state case), but the state case would not act as a mandated precedent in federal court. (My emphasis)
QUESTION: What does that concept do the regular give and take between the court systems, the idea of comity and cooperation between judges?
ANSWER: It destroys it. But that's the whole point of this Congressional action. Not liking a particular result in a case that has been litigated fully and completely by a court with competent jurisdiction, Congress now has said that the game must be re-done with new rules that heavily favor one side over the other. The implications of this move are astonishing. Just think about it. Anytime Congress doesn't like the result in a particular case, it could swoop in and call a "do-over," which is essentially what this legislation represents.
Read the entire interview. It's chilling. What's really cynical is that it comes from the party which has always had states' rights as one of its core "beliefs." Apparently beliefs are things that can be put aside like overcoats when convenient.
Posted by Linkmeister at March 20, 2005 08:06 AMhttp://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/369/
Many people, even conservatives, have taken the lesson from the Schiavo case that everyone should have a living will. But if religious extremists get their way, living wills may not be worth the paper they are written on.
When living will legislation first gained support in the ’70s and ’80s, the anti-abortion movement was adamantly opposed to demands for “death with dignity.” As the National Right to Life notes on its Web site (http://www.nrlc.org), living wills are used “to condition public acceptance of assisted suicide, mercy killing, and euthanasia.”
By and large, religious extremists lost their fight against living wills legislation. But Schiavo’s case appears to have re-energized the movement’s opposition to living wills, in the guise of opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide.
So that's what it's really about. ? I dread the day I have to move to the jungles of Borneo in order to ensure I can refuse a feeding tube or a respirator, simply because it's not considered euthanasia there, because they don't have the equipment. :(
Posted by: Chloe at March 21, 2005 06:24 AMYou know,you're the one person I've seen so far beside myself who's figured that out. That's what I said on several blogs last night: if Congress can intervene at will, like it has here, who's safe?
Posted by: Linkmeister at March 21, 2005 07:29 AMYeah, and how about this... Where are the right-to-lifers there in Texas??
Posted by: Chloe at March 21, 2005 09:30 AM