Fallout for the judicial system from the Terri Schiavo case

[(SDS)benmcl]

Not wishing to take away from the debate in the other thread which is very interesting I believe a new thread discussing a wider view point that this case has brought forth that is turning very nasty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/politics/23cong.html

WASHINGTON, March 22 - The intense fight in the Terri Schiavo case is injecting another explosive element into the coming Senate showdown over President Bush's choices for federal judgeships as well as into future battles to fill Supreme Court vacancies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/po.../23repubs.html

WASHINGTON, March 22 - The vote by Congress to allow the federal courts to take over the Terri Schiavo case has created distress among some conservatives who say that lawmakers violated a cornerstone of conservative philosophy by intervening in the ruling of a state court.

[5eleven]

I agree with both comments you highlighted. Although Arethusa disagrees with me, I believe that undertaking this "crusade" was a poor decision for conservatives. IMO they have engaged in an obvious double-standard.

[(SDS)benmcl]

They have. One interesting comment was that the conservatives who traditional uphold state law while the democrates are more for federal law have switched positions in this situation.

While I find the case sad and tragic in the scheme of things it doesn;t affect many people. What this case may trigger in backlash of judges pretty well effects everyone including everyone here.

Many issues will be winding there way through the courts such as copyright, music and movie sharing, censorship of media including the internet, patent vs copyright for software. These things and many more will get caught up in the backlash that is looming.

[5eleven]

Originally Posted by (SDS)benmcl

They have. One interesting comment was that the conservatives who traditional uphold state law while the democrates are more for federal law have switched positions in this situation.

Right, but what I find interesting is that the traditionally conservative federal courts that this found it's way to, (obviously not all federal courts are conservative, but one would think that it increased the Schindler's chances given the traditionally conservative courts that reviewed this case) upheld the traditional Republican position of not intervening in the State Court's decision.

Their decision to not issue an injunction wasn't necessarily based on a right to life or not stance, but more of whether the plaintiff would meet the standards of likely supporting their argument in the federal system. The federal system does not believe that they have met that burden of proof.

Originally Posted by (SDS)benmcl

While I find the case sad and tragic in the scheme of things it doesn;t affect many people. What this case may trigger in backlash of judges pretty well effects everyone including everyone here.

Hmmm, what do you mean? I think this case doesn't make an impact because thousands of these cases are decided across the country every day. The legal standard is apparently already there and has been met. I'm not sure essentially, what makes this case special. I don't follow what you mean by backlash.........the courts aren't going to cave to public outcry. The legislators should.

Originally Posted by (SDS)benmcl

Many issues will be winding there way through the courts such as copyright, music and movie sharing, censorship of media including the internet, patent vs copyright for software. These things and many more will get caught up in the backlash that is looming.

I don't even want to think about that crap.

[TheWhaleShark]

Originally Posted by (SDS)benmcl

They have. One interesting comment was that the conservatives who traditional uphold state law while the democrates are more for federal law have switched positions in this situation.

While I find the case sad and tragic in the scheme of things it doesn;t affect many people. What this case may trigger in backlash of judges pretty well effects everyone including everyone here.

Many issues will be winding there way through the courts such as copyright, music and movie sharing, censorship of media including the internet, patent vs copyright for software. These things and many more will get caught up in the backlash that is looming.

I actually find that role reversal to be more characteristic of the Neo-Conservative Leo Strauss worshipping gang; Neo-Cons I see as the arm of conservatives that tend to fly in the face of traditional conservative values. I distinctly remember when being a conservative was about wanting less invasive federal government (more state's rights) and reducing federal spending. I remember a time when conservatives didn't use the word "liberal" to deride someone, and when calling someone a "conservative" wasn't equating them to a closed-minded bigot.

Those were good times, and I think neo-conservatism has really destroyed that. Now we have a supposedly conservative federal government that wants to become more invasive and spend like there's no tomorrow.

[(SDS)benmcl]

Whaleshark you are exactly right. Much of which is going on is being driven by Neo-Conservative group which has formed a large part of the Republican base.

All one has to do is look actually how serious an amendment to the consituation is actually being seriously considered. The first amendment to exclude a group of people and something that would not have even been thought of 5 or 6 years ago. Since the administration and congress realize they cannot under the constitution change the law on same sex they decide to change it.

This same group is pushing for judicial appointments that would render judgements the way they want them. If a judement goes against what they decide is correct then there is a problem with the judicial system. then they pull a poll out of their ass. Sorry but a judge is to rule on the law and not on the polls.

Edit: What I meant by a backlash is that the neo conseratives are going to keep pointing at this case as an example why the judicary does not work and use it to bull there own people to the bench and there are a lot of appointments to be made. The fact is that congress over stepped their legal authority then when the courts went against their wished they blamed the judges.

[TheWhaleShark]

Originally Posted by (SDS)benmcl

Whaleshark you are exactly right. Much of which is going on is being driven by Neo-Conservative group which has formed a large part of the Republican base.

All one has to do is look actually how serious an amendment to the consituation is actually being seriously considered. The first amendment to exclude a group of people and something that would not have even been thought of 5 or 6 years ago. Since the administration and congress realize they cannot under the constitution change the law on same sex they decide to change it.

This same group is pushing for judicial appointments that would render judgements the way they want them. If a judement goes against what they decide is correct then there is a problem with the judicial system. then they pull a poll out of their ass. Sorry but a judge is to rule on the law and not on the polls.

Edit: What I meant by a backlash is that the neo conseratives are going to keep pointing at this case as an example why the judicary does not work and use it to bull there own people to the bench and there are a lot of appointments to be made. The fact is that congress over stepped their legal authority then when the courts went against their wished they blamed the judges.

What amazes me too is that a lot of people can say these things about the neo-cons, and yet we just let them walk all over the government like this. I know rednecks in my hometown that are pissed as hell because this "conservative" government is becoming more and more invasive. Nobody does anything, though.

How does that saying go? "There are 4 boxes to use in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Use in that order." Personally, I'm ready to skip jury and go right to ammo.

5eleven makes an interesting point; why the hell has this case received so much special attention? These people aren't rich, they aren't celebrities, this case is no different than any other case like it, and cases like this have been tried for ages. I would have to say that it is an example of unfortunate timing; the neo-cons in the Republican party have been forcing the morality issue for a while now, and they see this as an opportunity to play the morality card and rally the nation behind them. It's sickening, it really is.

[(SDS)benmcl]

Well it probably going to get worse. At the moment the leadership of the neo-cons have the ear of both the administration and congress with money to back them and an organization to put people in the polling booths. The Administration can say this is what we are about and what we are going to do we have the support.

On the other hand all I see is Democrates saying what they are against which is mostly Bush and his friends. I have yet to hear any clear vision from the party on anything other then "The Bush and friends want to do this. It is bad. We wanto stop them." That will surely provide an inspiration to bring people out to vote.

They had someone that kept the party in very good finacial shape and modernized the organization. They now have someone who can take that foundation and mold it into something very powerfull. What is lacking is a clear voice and leadership.

The thing is though they are not really looking at 2006 elections but rather 2008. They need strong visable leadership now.

[5eleven]

Let me confuse you with some of my perceptions and beliefs:

Originally Posted by TheWhaleShark

I distinctly remember when being a conservative was about wanting less invasive federal government (more state's rights) and reducing federal spending. I remember a time when conservatives didn't use the word "liberal" to deride someone, and when calling someone a "conservative" wasn't equating them to a closed-minded bigot.

I think conservatism still is. GWB ran on that platform in both terms. The difference is, he has to spend because of what we're into in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Phillipines, etc. I still feel that liberal and conservative aren't necessarily derogatory terms.

I thinkthat both liberals and conservatives have many extreme tentacles on both sides. I also think that GWB is not a neo-con, although I think he is more apt to express his religious convictions more frequently than some would like. Case in point: Mexican immigration. He has angered many of the so called neocons because of his stance and support of granting status to current illegals.

I really dont' want to touch the Gay Marriage amendment issue - but suffice it to say, I don't think it will pass, and I don't think it would seriously ever be found constitutional. It will be addressed the same way, IMO, as gays in the military under Clinton: Don't ask, don't tell, pretend you aren't discriminating and we don't care.

Originally Posted by (SDS)benmcl

This same group is pushing for judicial appointments that would render judgements the way they want them. If a judement goes against what they decide is correct then there is a problem with the judicial system. then they pull a poll out of their ass. Sorry but a judge is to rule on the law and not on the polls.

Sorry, I think that every US President wrings his hands in anticipation of appointing court nominees whose opinions and political party fall in line with their own. The concern here is that GWB has a chance to nominate a LOT of them. I truly believe, that even though every person has prejudices, and belief systems, any good judge makes determinations based on the principles of law. That's how they became a good judge. I think the federal judiciary response to the Schiavo case underscores that.

Originally Posted by TheWhaleShark

I know rednecks in my hometown that are pissed as hell because this "conservative" government is becoming more and more invasive. Nobody does anything, though.

Hmm. I was under the impression that most rednecks were neocons. You know, screaming about them negroes and faggots while they secretly mounted Elizabeth the blueribbon sheep in the barn in the middle of the night.

Originally Posted by TheWhaleShark

5eleven makes an interesting point; why the hell has this case received so much special attention?

I think we know the answer to that.......every group needs a posterboy. I hate to put it like that, but I remember a couple of times that this Schiavo thing came to light, and the Schindlers were either granted an injunction, or the tube was reinserted. Hell, that's no fun, we need a cause! Besides the fact that I think both the Schindlers and Schiavo, in their quest for what they want, both managed, developed and played the spin machine extremely well.

As far as ben's last post - I think we go through this restlessness during every President, especially an 8 year termer. I don't think that Bush is as much of a neocon as people believe, and I think he's more moderate than people give him credit. Several policies of his I don't agree with, some too conservative, some not conservative enough. It's the old double standard routine. Whomever you like does no wrong, and whomever you hate does nothing right. This will be a back and forth battle every so often.

Just my opinion.

[W0RF]

Originally Posted by 5eleven

Right, but what I find interesting is that the traditionally conservative federal courts that this found it's way to, (obviously not all federal courts are conservative, but one would think that it increased the Schindler's chances given the traditionally conservative courts that reviewed this case) upheld the traditional Republican position of not intervening in the State Court's decision.

eh? conservative? Are you aware that only one federal judge who has heard this case was nominated by Clinton, and that one guy, placed by Bush 41, was the one dissenting opinion in the DCA opinion from this morning? Conservative?

[5eleven]

Are we saying the same thing? I'm confused now. I was saying that I thought that the federal judge in Tampa that reviewed the case was typically conservative, and that for sure that the 11th District Appellate Court leaned conservative. That was my understanding anyway.

My point was that even though conservative, they didn't vote in support of issuing the injunction.

If I understand correctly, you are saying that only one was appointed by Clinton? And that the one judge appointed by Bush41 was the dissenting opinion? If that's the case, it proves my point, unless I haven't expressed it appropriately.

[W0RF]

No, EVERY SINGLE ONE was selected by Clinton, EXCEPT the one dissenter in the DCA.

Sorry for the cornfuzzion.

[(SDS)benmcl]

"It has been the basic premise of the three-branch system set up by the Constitution," said Eric M. Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra, "that judgments in individual cases are to be made by judges and not legislative bodies or executive officials. That division, which originated from unhappy experience in England, has been a valuable protection of liberty in this country over many centuries."

This illustrates a point I wanted to make earlier but could not. It is up to the Administrative branch and the Legislature to make laws for society. They are not to make them for individuals. It is up to the Judiciary to apply those laws to the individual.

Not only did Congress interfer with state law the interfered with the distribution of the three powers of government and the judges want nothing to do with it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/national/24legal.html

What I meant about the appointing of judges by the President kinda got confused. Yes any President wishes to stamp his views on the judicary with his appointments but that pressure has always been tempered by the nomation process. Before moderate conseratives always steered the process closer to the middle simply because their political life depends on it in the next election.

Now with neo-cons having such a strong voice these same politicians have to go further from the centre towards the shifting base. That is if they want be nominated by there party and supported because the party will listen to those that got them in and the loudest voice in that group is the neo-cons.