Mr. Governor,
Suppose Judge Greer issued a ruling authorizing Michael Schiavo to take a twelve-gauge shotgun into Terri’s hospice room and blow her brains out. Okay, to avoid complications with firearms laws, let’s substitute a commando knife and a ruling allowing him to slit her throat.
I know: The Schindlers would appeal. But let’s say that the higher courts continued to circle their wagons and refuse even to hear the appeals. (Sure, that’s crazy, but so are the actual events of this case.)
Would you still be sitting around licking your wounds, doing nothing?
You’re saying as long as you can’t find a judge to give you permission, you can’t stand up for this victimized woman’s right to have an ice chip or a bit of water — mere palliative care given even to dying patients in multi-system failure? You can’t say "This judge has no right to deny palliative care to a dying woman"? You can’t say "If the woman can swallow, she has the right to have some water"? You can’t say "The affidavits against Michael Schiavo warrant taking Terri out of his custody," and act on that?
You’re supposed to be a leader. Leaders don’t always wait for someone to give them permission to act or tell them what they do or don’t have the right to do. Your brother didn’t wait for the rest of the U.N. to tell him he had the right to defy the Security Council and go into Iraq. Bill Clinton didn’t wait for a judge to tell him he had the right to defy the Florida courts and take custody of Elian Gonzalez.
No matter what anyone thinks of either man or either action, they were actions of born leaders, men capable of bucking opposition, of deciding what needed to be done and doing it in spite of what they considered obstructionist opposition.
I do recognize and appreciate the efforts that you have made to save Terri’s life. Given less determined judicial obstructionism, they might have been enough.
They weren’t..
Terri needs a bolder, stronger defense than she has received. You seem to be a good man. Terri needs more than a good man in the governor’s office. She needs a heroic one.
The problem is that courts have already ruled that starving and dehydrating terminally ill and severely disabled people to death is legal, so Judge Greer has not done anything illegal. Immoral, oh yes, but illegal, nope. Courts have not yet ruled that it’s okay to use guns or knives to kill the sick and the disabled. Give them time, though, and we’ll probably see that at some point.
If Bush were to storm the hospice, shooting up the front to get in since the local police loyal to Greer wouldn’t let them in otherwise (see article about Jeb’s aborted attempt to storm the hospice), what then? Terri’s tube would be reinserted, but since Bush’s heroic action would be illegal, it would inevitably be removed again, and I suspect very very soon after it was put back in. Jeb would likely be impeached, the pro-life movement would have received great political damage, and Jeb might even go to jail (especially if there were a shootout in front of the hospice).
Let’s look at this from another angle. Today, at least 3000 abortions will take place. Some will be in Florida. Should Jeb send out state troopers in plain clothers to watch abortion clinics and grab any pregnant women walking in, with the intention of taking the babies into protective custody? Heroic action is necessary to save those lives. No? Why not? Because it would be futile and would destroy the chance of changing abortion law and jurisprudence?
When did the courts rule that denying palliative care was legal?
Wait, that’s a stupid question: Judge Greer has ruled that denying palliative care is legal. The real question is, where does the law say that denying palliative care is legal? Not everything courts have ruled actually has any basis in law.
Likewise, if Judge Greer did rule that Michael could slit his wife’s throat, then we would have a court ruling that it is okay to slit the throats of severely disabled patients.
Given the way the courts are currently walkiing all over the law, the rest of government, and the American people generally, our only hope in such an instance would be to get another court to hear the case and overturn the decision.
My whole question is, what if no court is willing to do that? What if the courts circle wagons and refuse to hear the case? What if Congress passes a law saying “Let’s take another look at this,” and the courts still say no? What happees to checks and balances if the judges decide that they can tell the other two branches what to do and don’t have to listen to what they say? When do the other two branches begin standing up to the judiciary?
The abortion analogy doesn’t apply. Abortion “rights” have been imposed at the federal level by the Supreme Court, and need to be addressed at that level. The starvation of Terri Schiavo has been substantially imposed by one judge, and AFAIK there is not yet a clearly established judicially mandated right to deny palliative care.
What’s the difference between this case & that of Elian Gonzales? Janet Reno sent in US Marshalls into the Florida home Elian was residing in with relatives, forcibly removed him & deported him back to Cuba to his father. All this after a court order mandating that he stay in the USA! What’s the difference? Politicians who sway in the wind of public opinion. At the time of the Elian Gonzales case, more Americans made it clear that they were more in support of Elian being with his father in a Communist nation than supported the child’s freedom in the USA. Even though conservative members of the House & Senate vigorously called for Elian to remain in the US, the liberals in charge at the time won out & used force! Wasn’t that illegal? I recall TV news images of armed men storming the home & removing a terrified young boy! Did that hurt Clinton? Now, sure, we’re talking about an immigration issue with Elian, too, but there were other children in the US illegally at the time, separated from their parents in Cuba, but those kids didn’t get the same treatment as Elian, did they? There is precedent the other way. Now, I’m not advocating US Marshalls storming the hospice & I’m not in support of a firefight between them & Greer’s police, but the point remains that if public opinion had swayed stronger in the other direction, & we had been able to move against the MSM machine – hell-bent on helping Michael Schaivo kill an innocent woman in a brutal, monstrous way – & get the truth out about Terri, perhaps things would have gone differently.
So long as the general populace is willing to turn their heads & allow an appointed juciciary to force their personal opinions on us, then we’ll deserve what we get. And the next time liberals have political control, they’ll see these little “victories” as mandates & set (read: “ram down our throats”) their policies accordingly. Of this I have no doubt.
All this after a court order mandating that he stay in the USA!
Was that from a state court or a federal court? If the former, then the Clinton administration could argue (and they’d probably be right) that a state court had no authority to stand in the way of federal immigration law. In any event, once Elian was removed from his Miami relatives’ home and sent back to Cuba, that was the end of it. They couldn’t exactly get him back in this country without a huge international incident. If Jeb were to send in the troops and restore Terri’s feeding tube, that wouldn’t be the end of it. Since every rationale for Jeb’s action has already been rejected by the courts, the courts would order that the troops leave and the feeding tube be removed again and Terri would still be murdered.
“The starvation of Terri Schiavo has been substantially imposed by one judge, and AFAIK there is not yet a clearly established judicially mandated right to deny palliative care.”
No, it seems that the courts have already created a “right” to deny palliative care.
http://secret-agent.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_secret-agent_archive.html#111173319314169177
“The Court has already held that sates may allow “substitute” or “surrogate” decision-makers like Michael Schiavo to withhold food and water from those in their care.[10]”
“[10] Cruzan v. Director, DMH, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).”
An alternative letter might be:
“Dear Governor Bush,
Please bear in mind that political suicide is a death it is possible to walk away from.”
Marjorie Nighbert folks.
Terri’s far from the worst victim.
Let us hope and pray that the case opens eyes.
“If Jeb were to send in the troops and restore Terri’s feeding tube, that wouldn’t be the end of it. Since every rationale for Jeb’s action has already been rejected by the courts, the courts would order that the troops leave and the feeding tube be removed again and Terri would still be murdered.”
The courts can command the National Guard? If any, I would think the National Guard would be loyal to Bush. Jackson-esque like action would not be a total failure, as long as the Guard can outshoot forces loyal to Greer.
It would be so cool, if Jeb can look Greer in the eye and tell him, “You have made your ruling. Now let’s see you enforce it.”
If he sacrifices his political career for her, then he would be a man greater than even his brother. No politician could be so noble…