Debate Over Schiavo
The issues raised in the Schiavo case are not all left/right ones the way so many other issues are. There are many aspects of this story that make for intelligent, if sometimes heated, debate which has been occurring in the comments section here for at least the past week. I received the following email from a reader and I am posting my response below, as well.
you, and some other conservatives are beginning to advocate for results based rulings from the court in the S. case. This type of judiciary has been the liberal style for many years and true conservatives have been a judiciary of laws. There is no question that the law was followed and that due process was followed, and I think you do the conservative movement an injustice to question the result after a trial, and after appeals, just because you don’t like (or agree with) the outcome. When environmental activist lawyers or criminal defense lawyers do this, conservatives rail against them, but after this you will not be able to do so with integrity. I am sorry to see such short sighted thinking.
Here is my response (which was written in a rush and has not been proofread):
I will continue to criticize judges for ignoring a congressional subpoena and for ignoring a Congressional order for a DE NOVO trial, especially when a woman’s life is at stake. Judges are not always right and in this case all that has been done is the legal issues have been reviewed (very quickly in the federal case) and the legal decisions upheld. What was ordered was a new look at the facts. There is too much fishiness in this case to completely ignore over 30 doctors and testimony by some of abuse by Schiavo. I have the same opinion when it comes to innocent prisoners that were wrongly found guilty. I am not advocating “results based” rulings. I am just advocating ruling on the
entire record of all the evidence, not on the record of a pro-euthanasia guardian ad litem and the exclusion of basic neurological testing and exclusion of testimony of dozens of qualified medical experts. I am also saying that when there is a dispute over the medical condition (which there is if all the medical experts who have examined Terri are allowed to testify) and the wishes of the individual (which there also is if testimony from all of Terri’s friends and family is allowed) we
should err on the side of life.I have no problem whatsoever with environmental or criminal lawyers doing the same thing. They should be allowed to submit the evidence in total, unless it is totally discredited, which is not the case in the Schiavo matter. I am not arguing with the decision of the judge, even though I disagree with it, but with his refusal to allow all facts to be considered. He gave each side 30 minutes. Then he ruled in about 2 hours. Not only did he not consider the significant evidence the state court disallowed, but he didn’t even have time to have considered the record from the state court proceedings. I don’t think that is conservative or liberal. I just think it is common sense and common decency to consider everything when a life is in the balance.
UPDATE: More to ponder at Musing Minds.
UPDATE (2:40 3/23): More debate fodder for all those claiming heartless Republicans are just playing politics with this isse — what about the Democrats who sided with the Republicans on this matter? If you are going to accuse Republicans, then you also need to include the 47 Democrats in the House that voted with Republicans, as well as liberal Senators like Tom Harkin. I also don’t understand how the same people claiming that this is a horrible move for Republicans because the public is all for removing Terri’s tube, can also accuse them of acting out of purely political motives.
Update (3/23, 3:20): Bill LuMaye, an NC talk radio host, is airing the statements of NC Congreeman, Mel Watt, made during the Schiavo debate. Watts thinks the money wasted voted on Schiavo should have been spent on all the starving children. GAG. LuMaye said that if Terri was his daughter he would have already been arrested because he could not have watched her die of thirst and starvation. I can’t imagine it myself.
Also on the WPTF radio program, this MRC report was read. How does the media continue to get away with this?
A new Media Research Center study finds the three broadcast network evening newscasts have tilted their recent coverage of the Terri Schiavo case in ways that bolster her husband Michael’s arguments that the severely disabled woman is in an irreversible vegetative state and had clearly expressed a desire to die.
Subscribe to blog feed.