Rick Santorum and the Terri Schiavo disaster
I recall two times in my life when I was awestruck and appalled by what seemed to be grotesque political overreaching.
The first was President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” caper, in which he pranced around the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in his flight suit, celebrating a victory that to this day has not been won.
The second, and far more egregious, was the Terri Schiavo affair, in which Congress attempted to directly intervene in a family dispute in Florida involving a clearly brain-dead woman. Republicans in Washington DC became so overwrought in that case, so certain of their laymen’s ability to diagnose Schiavo’s medical condition from afar, so wrapped up in their own sanctimony, that they tried to subpoena the Florida judge handling the case to testify in Congress and even passed “emergency legislation” ordering the federal judiciary to intervene to “save” Schiavo.
The crowning moment came, you may recall, when President Bush broke off his vacation in Texas to fly back to Washington to sign the “Save Terri” bill into law.
I bring all this up because the person perhaps most responsible for that shameless act of political narcissism is now a leading candidate for the GOP president nomination. Back in 2005, then-Sen. Rick Santorum helped turn the Schiavo tragedy into a national morality play, with himself and a few others self-cast as its heroes. He even went so far as to visit Schiavo’s bedside in Florida, proclaiming that her mental state was “close to equivalent of someone with the disease cerebral palsy.”
“”We need to do something to stop this unconscionable act on the part of the Florida Court,” Santorum preached at the time. “Terri Schiavo is a daughter, a sister, and most importantly, a person. We cannot allow an innocent person to be put to death.”
Today, Santorum tries to downplay his involvement. “What I cared about with Terri Schiavo was that a judge looked at the case fairly, and they did,” he told CNN not long ago. “And they made their decision.”
But that wasn’t his tune seven years ago. Seven years ago, he and others wanted to hold the Florida judge in contempt of Congress. Santorum was even angrier that the local federal judge in Florida had refused to obey Congress’ order to intercede, and hinted at impeachment.
“For this judge in this district to ignore that is tantamount, I believe, to an offense that should be discussed in the Congress,” he said on Fox News at the time. “What we asked for in the Congress was a new finding of fact. And this judge in this district ignored it, snubbed his nose at Congress, I think against the law. I think he should be held accountable for it.”
In another interview, Santorum complained about “judicial tyranny” on the part of the federal judge.
“Congress passed a law that said that you had to look at this case,” Santorum said. “He simply thumbed his nose at Congress…. What he’s saying is, ‘I don’t have to hold a new trial because I’ve already determined that her rights have been protected.’ That’s nice for him to say that. But that’s not what Congress told him to do. Judges should obey the law. And this judge – in my mind – simply ignored the law.”
A man of such demonstrated poor judgment should never be given the powers inherent in the office of president of the United States.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
479 comments Add your comment
wow
February 14th, 2012
4:54 pm
dude, you are reaching, is this all you could find to slam the GOP front runner du jour?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 14th, 2012
4:54 pm
Ahh the efforts of some Republicans to rewrite the past.
wow
February 14th, 2012
4:54 pm
btw, first people!
jm
February 14th, 2012
4:55 pm
previous topic
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/A-Day-in-the-Life-of-the-Grid-with-Jon-Wellinghoff-Chairman-of-FERC/
alternatives can’t provide energy when you need it
jm
February 14th, 2012
4:56 pm
“The first was President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” caper, in which he pranced around the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in his flight suit, celebrating a victory that to this day has not been won.”
You are ignorant about this event.
That sign was meant solely for that ship and as encouragement for those troops, not the whole war.
You turkeys take everything out of context and blow it up 1000 times.
SalvorHardin
February 14th, 2012
4:57 pm
“All you could find…?” No, it’s one card out of a really, really large deck.
jm
February 14th, 2012
5:00 pm
“A man of such demonstrated poor judgment should never be given the powers inherent in the office of president of the United States.”
commentary over reach
but vote Mitt 2012
wow
February 14th, 2012
5:00 pm
with all do respect Salvor, I think Jay’s reaching. I’m not a Santorum supporter either, I think he’s horribly flawed, but not for being an ardent pro-lifer…
Brosephus
February 14th, 2012
5:00 pm
alternatives can’t provide energy when you need it
Generalizations do not look well on you. CNG is an alternative, and I’m pretty sure it can provide energy when you need it. I’m thinking that liquefied coal could do that too. I’m also thinking you forgot about that invention called a battery? Just admit it that you’re a oil whore just like most others. Be honest with yourself for a change.
jm
February 14th, 2012
5:02 pm
bro dude. you are ignorant my friend
Natural gas plants are not “alternative”. They’re proven technology all over the country and provide a huge portion of base load.
jm
February 14th, 2012
5:05 pm
“oil whore”
yeah. i drive a prius.
and my utility bill is $43 a month because my home is so well insulated.
bro, your petulant ignorance is showing.
GaBlue
February 14th, 2012
5:05 pm
A: The 19th Amendment.
Q: What is the biggest thing standing between Santorum and the Presidency, Alex?
AmVet - You cons have got to ask yourself one question: Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, punks?
February 14th, 2012
5:06 pm
Santorum is not an ardent pro-lifer.
He’s an ardent idiot and ideologue with semi-permanent foot-in-mouth-disease.
He got absolutely destroyed in the last election he was in, and he insists on embarrassing himself once again?
OK…
kaycee
February 14th, 2012
5:08 pm
It is interesting how certain bloggers will bloviate about federalism and “states’ rights” but contradict themselves when it is convenient. The Schiavo case, as far as I can see, was an issue properly addressed at the state level. The feds needed to keep their big noses out of it. It was embarrassing to see Congress fall all over themselves trying to inject themselves into the debate.
Kamchak
February 14th, 2012
5:08 pm
That sign was meant solely for that ship and as encouragement for those troops, not the whole war.
Also:
“The check’s in the mail.”
“Don’t worry, I’ve had a vasectomy.”
“No, those pants don’t make your butt look fat.”
“The smoking gun is the mushroom cloud.”
jm
February 14th, 2012
5:09 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-14/spending-won-t-fix-what-ails-u-s-transport-commentary-by-edward-glaeser.html
Brosephus
February 14th, 2012
5:11 pm
jm
My petulance is nothing when compared to your word vomit here. Just keep doing what you’re doing. CNG in vehicles IS an alternative energy source. Broaden your mind and you’re likely to broaden your horizon. And, yes, even if you’re driving a Prius, you’re still an oil whore. That vehicle is not 100% electric is it?
jm
February 14th, 2012
5:12 pm
Kam. I know the person that put it there. PR mishap, but it was purely meant to encourage the troops.
Midori
February 14th, 2012
5:12 pm
I remember the Schiavo disaster.
Bill Frist diagnosed her from the floor of the senate
The entire GOP looked like a bunch of morans — especially when someone claimed Terry could walk and talk.
the woman didn’t even have an effing brain!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/national/15cnd-schiavo.html
jm
February 14th, 2012
5:13 pm
“even if you’re driving a Prius, you’re still an oil whore”
hilarious.
Jay, you see how idiotic your liberal readers have become?
ragnar danneskjold
February 14th, 2012
5:13 pm
I thought the effort to preserve Terri Schiavo’s grasp for life admirable, and the efforts of the Great American death cult, aka democrat regulars, an abomination. The parents desperately wished to continue efforts to recover the life of their child, and were willing to accept the costs and responsibility. Of course, the unfaithful husband was successful in his effort to snuff his wife (did he ever marry the girlfriend?) I think that case told more about “character,” and the way it has polarized along party lines in America, than even the abortion debate.
As to the cheap shot against President Bush – do we ever expect anything else from leftists? – he did not hang the banner, and one certainly cannot imagine Chauncey landing on an aircraft carrier to congratulate troops for their efforts during wartime. More likely he would cut Defense funding.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 14th, 2012
5:14 pm
jm — “That sign was meant solely for that ship and as encouragement for those troops, not the whole war.”
Which is why it was all over the evening news. GMAMFB.
Brosephus
February 14th, 2012
5:14 pm
Kam. I know the person that put it there. PR mishap, but it was purely meant to encourage the troops.
^^^This^^^ coming from the same person who got upset about The First Lady saying that she was REALLY proud of her country, even when the quote was misquoted.
AmVet - You cons have got to ask yourself one question: Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, punks?
February 14th, 2012
5:14 pm
GaBlue, LOL.
As for Mission Accomplished, it was just one of innumerable disgraceful stunts by the worst excuse for an American leader ever.
But the chickenhawks sure lapped it all up…
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
February 14th, 2012
5:15 pm
Well, I recall this Terri Schiavo. Seems she could look around and smile but she had no brain. And the Republicans had a good reason to keep her on life support. See, she was a Republican.
Have a good night everybody.
Aquagirl
February 14th, 2012
5:15 pm
I think he’s horribly flawed, but not for being an ardent pro-lifer…
Pro-life? Her brain was goo, honey. Pro-vegetable maybe.
Let him shove Congress in the middle of your family tragedy and maybe you’d feel a bit differently. Oh, wait, it’s somebody else so you obviously don’t give a flying fig.
And where’s all our big-gubmin’t haters? They seemed to be MIA when this originally happened too.
Kamchak
February 14th, 2012
5:15 pm
Kam. I know the person that put it there.
I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
With Shakira.
And Katy Perry.
Brosephus
February 14th, 2012
5:16 pm
jm
Are you calling me an idiot? Or do you not realize that the gas you put into your Prius comes from refined crude oil. When you buy that Nissan Leaf or equivalent vehicle, come talk to me. Otherwise, your attempt at labeling somebody an idiot is merely a reflection in the mirror.
Jefferson
February 14th, 2012
5:16 pm
Sometimes you just don’t want the train to ever stop, what about tomorrow Scarlet ?
ragnar danneskjold
February 14th, 2012
5:17 pm
Certainly leftists think there is no reason for judges to obey the law as passed by Congress. Hope they remember that next time an Obomination like ObamaCare comes around.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 14th, 2012
5:18 pm
Midori — “Bill Frist diagnosed her from the floor of the senate”
And he was wrong in his conclusions. Plus, I believe it’s a violation of some ethical provision to diagnose a patient you haven’t personally examined. Frist diagnosed Schiavo based on his viewing of an edited videotape provided by Terri’s parents.
Erwin's cat
February 14th, 2012
5:19 pm
I’m not sure which is more out of context of the two….but hey, why not force an inappropriate comparison for the sake of political canon fodder
Joe Hussein Mama
February 14th, 2012
5:21 pm
R. Danneskjold — “I thought the effort to preserve Terri Schiavo’s grasp for life admirable”
Well, of course you would. You couldn’t possibly tolerate her husband making her medical decisions for her, as every applicable law, legal principle and precedent in the United States has held. Mr. Schiavo prevailed in *every* legal proceeding except one near Terri’s death, and in no legal decision was he ever faulted in any way.
Of course a supposed libertarian like you would cheer the use of state power to micromanage a single American family. Hypocrite.
ragnar danneskjold
February 14th, 2012
5:23 pm
Dear Joe @ 5:21, I fear you need an Oxford Dictionary. The purpose of government is to protect the helpless from the malicious. Leftists turn that aphorism on its head, daily.
bman
February 14th, 2012
5:23 pm
Rick Santorum is a crazy, crazy man. If it ends up with crazy man vs Obama, I will stay home on voting day.. .. and hope that Obama wins. I’m not too worried though… .. pretty sure Romney will end up winning.
Cynic
February 14th, 2012
5:24 pm
Santorum’s creepy, the article is a ridiculous reach.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 14th, 2012
5:24 pm
R. Danneskjold — “Dear Joe @ 5:21, I fear you need an Oxford Dictionary. The purpose of government is to protect the helpless from the malicious. Leftists turn that aphorism on its head, daily.
Dear Rags @ 5:23, I fear you need a copy of the Constitution. Nowhere in it is such a putative purpose specified. It might be an aphorism as you suggest, but it’s neither law nor Constitutional.
AmVet - You cons have got to ask yourself one question: Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, punks?
February 14th, 2012
5:26 pm
Although lots of people had previously and correctly considered Frist a total neo-con nutjob sellout, that despicable stunt sent him to the very bottom of the con septic tank.
Where his legacy will likely remain forever.
Rags, I’ve got to hand it to you. If nothing else you certainly are unflappable.
After those multiple tape measure shots that you served up to JB earlier today, most guys would not come back for more bush league set ups.
There’s a long drive! It’s going, going… Oh my goodness, it’s in the upper deck!
ragnar danneskjold
February 14th, 2012
5:27 pm
Dear Joe @ 5:24, if you ever bothered to read the Constitution, you would know all I preach here daily. You probably don’t think the Constitution’s purpose is to limit the reach of the central government either, do you?
Why oh why?
February 14th, 2012
5:28 pm
J – out of curiosity, why do you allow jm to demean these boards with his off-topic, juvenile, ad hominem, grossly ignorant invective? Surely he’s a good candidate for, at a minimum, a slap on the wrist or, preferably, an outright ban. Him and his rhetoric have no place on this blog.
Matti
February 14th, 2012
5:29 pm
Joe H. Mama @ 5:21,
Nicely put! My thoughts almost verbatim!
md
February 14th, 2012
5:29 pm
For what it’s worth:
“As explained by Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Navy spokesman, “The banner was a Navy idea, the ship’s idea. The idea popped up in one of the meetings aboard the ship preparing for its homecoming and thought it would be good to have a banner, ‘Mission Accomplished.’ The sailors then asked if the White House could get the sign made. … The banner signified the successful completion of the ship’s deployment,” Cmdr. Chun continued noting that the Abraham Lincoln was deployed 290 days, longer than any other nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in history.”
ragnar danneskjold
February 14th, 2012
5:29 pm
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Nowhere does it say the purpose of the government is to enable the malicious to snuff out the helpless.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
February 14th, 2012
5:29 pm
Well, I got a PC problem maybe one of you computer Norman Einsteins can help me fix. When I’m on Bookman’s blog and I hit that little half circle with the arrow to bring on the next set of posts, my PC bounces right up to the top of Bookman’s blog. Instead of coming to rest at the last post the way it use to. What’s going on here? Has a librul Democrat got his hands on my PC and screwed things up?
Paul
February 14th, 2012
5:30 pm
And the spotlight centers on Santorum.
Keep trying to rewrite the history, Rick. Maybe you can fool just enough people to get the nomination and guarantee Pres Obama’s reelection.
Midori
I know I’m walking on thin ice here, but…
“the woman didn’t even have an effing brain!!!”
Maybe that’s why Santorum identified so closely with her?
rags! Glad you’re back! I think you signed off right after you made an assertion and I asked for clarification:
Your defense comment (”And, in typical Democrat fashion, the only areas where Obama proposes actual spending cuts for 2012 are the two areas where spending is mandated by the Constitution, military and the post office. No leadership there.”)
: are you saying there are no upper limits? That any cuts from any baseline demonstrates no leadership?
If funding is reduced for development and concurrent purchase of fighter aircraft that are years behind schedule and have critical flaws, that’s no leadership?
If funding is cut for one surveillance program and the duties transferred to another surveillance program because it will save millions of dollars, that’s no leadership?
Midori
February 14th, 2012
5:30 pm
looks like Ragnar is just as brain dead as Terry
Midori
February 14th, 2012
5:31 pm
Midori
I know I’m walking on thin ice here, but…
“the woman didn’t even have an effing brain!!!”
Maybe that’s why Santorum identified so closely with her?
great minds, Paul!!
Tommy Maddox
February 14th, 2012
5:32 pm
Why have flashbacks? How about three years and NO BUDGET from our lovely Senate?
Quit looking for stupid crap in the past Jay and stick with the stupid stuff that is right now – courtesy of the Party in power.
Midori
February 14th, 2012
5:32 pm
md – come now.
I mean really.
and that guy Cheney shot in the face was sooooooo sorry he got in the way of the buckshot, too!!
ragnar danneskjold
February 14th, 2012
5:33 pm
Dear Joe @ various times, my thoughts on the purposes of government arise from my understanding of the writings of Robert Nozick. He goes back to the first thought, “why would anyone endeavor to organize a government?” The short answer is that it is to be a “mutual protection organization.” The infuses my world view.
Paul
February 14th, 2012
5:34 pm
ragnar
“The parents desperately wished to continue efforts to recover the life of their child, and were willing to accept the costs and responsibility. Of course, the unfaithful husband ”
Are you saying it’s now a bedrock conservative principle that parents can interfere with the decisions of their married children’s families?
If so, what are the limits? Any?
ragnar danneskjold
February 14th, 2012
5:35 pm
The Schiavo case presented those who wished to preserve life, and were willing to bear all responsibility for the effort, against those for whom it was convenient to extinguish life. Same as the abortion debate, thus my opposition to the Cult of Death.
Matti
February 14th, 2012
5:35 pm
Nowhere does it say the purpose of the government is to enable the malicious to snuff out the helpless.
Nope. That responsibility belongs to the House GOP under the direction of the Republican Study Committee, on the orders of their corporate billionaire sponsors.
Aquagirl
February 14th, 2012
5:36 pm
Nowhere does it say the purpose of the government is to enable the malicious to snuff out the helpless.
You’re still stumping for the woman who had a head full of goo?
If she’s your wife, water, turn and fertilize her. The rest of us have no obligation to let you decide anything for us. I realize this pains you greatly, but you’ll just have to settle for running your own life and family. I hope you’ll endure this terrible shot to your ego.
Jay
February 14th, 2012
5:36 pm
Nothing — and I mean nothing — in a White House operation stage-managed under Karl Rove appears on camera without the explicit approval of the White House.
josef
February 14th, 2012
5:37 pm
While I’m far from a fan of Santorum’s and have been looking forward to hurling rotten tomatoes his direction and while I’m still bewildered by the lunacy that went on during the Schiavo episode, I’m going to have to cast my vote with the this is an overreach faction. There’s plenty much more contemporary and of much greater relevance to the here and now of the campaign season to skewer him on. IMUO.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 14th, 2012
5:37 pm
R. Danneskjold — “Dear Joe @ 5:24, if you ever bothered to read the Constitution, you would know all I preach here daily.”
You preached it, while I taught First Amendment law at the university level. Check and mate.
“You probably don’t think the Constitution’s purpose is to limit the reach of the central government either, do you?”
Exactly the reason why your claimed purpose earlier is nothing of the sort, and why Congress has no power to micromanage individual families. Thanks for the assist! (pointing, laughing)
Paul
February 14th, 2012
5:38 pm
Fifty years ago people were concerned that electing a Catholic to the presidency would mean Vatican control in Washington. Thankfully, Pres Kennedy disabused the nation of that fear and established a wonderful record that illustrated the difference between public policy and private practice.
Santorum’s doing a great job in undoing that legacy.
ragnar danneskjold
February 14th, 2012
5:38 pm
Dear Paul @ 5:34, fair question. Had the perspective been reversed, that the parents wished to bury and the husband wished to maintain, I would have sided with the husband. The issue for me is not maintaining particular rules of empowerment as much as it is to preserve and extend life to the greatest extent possible. The Congressional effort, to attempt to push the power into the hands of those who would preserve, struck me as noble, and the effort to oppose was base.
md
February 14th, 2012
5:39 pm
“md – come now.
I mean really.”
I wasn’t there Midori…..how about you? Have some info to counter the commander?
And sure, I’m just as skeptical as the next guy……but it’s also possible I’m just as wrong.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 14th, 2012
5:39 pm
Rags — “Nowhere does it say the purpose of the government is to enable the malicious to snuff out the helpless.”
Nowhere does it say that Congress can intervene in a family medical decision.
Plus, there’s a legal principle that Congress can’t make a law that only affects one person.
jm
February 14th, 2012
5:39 pm
Jay 5:36 – let’s just say the person got a slap on the wrist after the “event”.
ragnar danneskjold
February 14th, 2012
5:40 pm
Dear Joe, I suspect you are a follower of John Rawls.
ragnar danneskjold
February 14th, 2012
5:41 pm
Dear Joe, under what conditions does a lesser court, one formed by Congressional legislation, have jurisdiction to do anything?
Joe Hussein Mama
February 14th, 2012
5:41 pm
R. Danneskjold — “Dear Joe @ various times, my thoughts on the purposes of government arise from my understanding of the writings of Robert Nozick. He goes back to the first thought, “why would anyone endeavor to organize a government?” The short answer is that it is to be a “mutual protection organization.” The infuses my world view.”
Fortunately, I constrain myself to a more restrictive reading of the Constitution, not an expansive reading that lends itself to things I might want that don’t actually happen to be in there.
Ayn Rant
February 14th, 2012
5:41 pm
Here’s a great idea, suggested by Kyle Winfield! Vote for Santorum in the primary. There’s no point in voting a Democrat ticket in the primary, so let’s give the Republican “establishment” a jolt.
The Republican self-serving elite have been able to win elections by throwing red meat to the loonies. Now, the loonies are threatening to take over the GOP.
Ha! Ha! Sit back and enjoy the spectacle!
md
February 14th, 2012
5:42 pm
“Nothing — and I mean nothing — in a White House operation stage-managed under Karl Rove appears on camera without the explicit approval of the White House.”
And?
You have anything other than opinion that the ship didn’t come up with the idea??
Anything?? Otherwise, this is a circular game……
YOUR party SUCKS! But MINE is GRRRRRREAT! (formerly That Black Guy)
February 14th, 2012
5:43 pm
Did I miss it? Has someone painted ALL conservatives with this view yet?
ragnar danneskjold
February 14th, 2012
5:43 pm
Dear Joe @ various times, I do not doubt that you magnify the law above simple right and wrong. I magnify right (vs wrong) above the law. The law is not noble when it empowers private killing where there is a reliable effort to preserve life.
Cynic
February 14th, 2012
5:44 pm
RedNeck Convert, the same thing was happening to my pc. At first I thought it was a sobriety test, or Jay messing with me to try and get me to think about what I was posting first, but I downloaded Google Chrome and quit using MS Internet Exploder.
Midori
February 14th, 2012
5:44 pm
md – pls refer to Jay’s comments above.
Of course I wasn’t there.
The president told reporters the sign was put up by the Navy, not the White House.
“I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff — they weren’t that ingenious, by the way,” the president said Tuesday.
Now his statements are being parsed even further.
Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy’s idea, the White House actually made it.
The speech and events surrounding it were widely publicized and served as the symbolic end to the war in Iraq.
At the time, it appeared that every detail of the day’s events had been carefully planned, including the president’s arrival in the co-pilot’s seat of a Navy S-3B Viking after making two flybys of the carrier.
The exterior of the four-seat S-3B Viking was marked with “Navy 1″ and “George W. Bush Commander in Chief.”
I report; you decide
YOUR party SUCKS! But MINE is GRRRRRREAT! (formerly That Black Guy)
February 14th, 2012
5:44 pm
I lived in Tampa during that circus and felt the repub were dead wrong.
Paul
February 14th, 2012
5:45 pm
rags 5:38
If I understand you correctly, when it comes to what you deem ‘matters of preserving and extending life’ the federal government should have the power to intervene and overrule family decisions?
Seriously, in all cases? No more ‘do not resuscitate’ directives? No more living wills? Because those directives deal with the individual and family terminating life, not extending it.
ragnar danneskjold
February 14th, 2012
5:45 pm
Dear Joe @ 5:41, you shock me. I thought you surely believed merely breathing was commercial activity, thus allowing Obamacare a Constitutional basis.
Midori
February 14th, 2012
5:45 pm
by the way md — it’s still not certain who designed the flight suit: http://www.looptvandfilm.com/blog/commander_bunny_pants.jpg
jm
February 14th, 2012
5:46 pm
the Republicans were wrong on the Schiavo thing. it was disgusting.
the parents sure didn’t help
Joe Hussein Mama
February 14th, 2012
5:47 pm
R. Danneskjold — “The Schiavo case presented those who wished to preserve life, and were willing to bear all responsibility for the effort, against those for whom it was convenient to extinguish life.”
Incorrect. It was an opportunity for the anti-choice crowd to prove, for once and for all, that they really were about law and freedom when it comes to medical decisions. Every applicable law, legal principle and court decision in the country states that a spouse can make medical decisions for a spouse who cannot speak for themselves. But in the Schiavo case, the anti-choicers were prepared to throw that overboard in order to assert government control over medical decision — just like they want to do with abortion.
Nothing in our laws or court decisions supported constraining the husband’s rights, and he prevailed in every court but one (the decision that put the feeding tube back in a couple of months before Terri finally was allowed to die). He was never faulted or found liable in any court cases surrounding the matter.
This was a clear matter of the anti-choice crowd attempting to use state power in an unconstitutional and coercive manner in order to preempt individual medical decisions with which they did not agree. And it’s distinctly different from abortion, having a long, long history of supporting legal precedent.
“Same as the abortion debate, thus my opposition to the Cult of Death.”
And your slavish devotion to the Cult of Control.
jm
February 14th, 2012
5:48 pm
aaaaaaaaaaand the national debt continues to tick like a time bomb…….
ragnar danneskjold
February 14th, 2012
5:48 pm
Dear Paul @ 5:45, agreed, there is an element of decency involved here too. Hypothetical, if my wife of 34 years were suddenly comatose and unresponsive, and if she had issued a POAFHCD giving me power to pull the plugs, but my father in law opposed, would I pull the plug? Of course not. A decent respect for a reasonable objection is an element of sound decision-making, obvious lacking in the Schiavo case.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 14th, 2012
5:48 pm
R. Danneskjold — “The issue for me is not maintaining particular rules of empowerment as much as it is to preserve and extend life to the greatest extent possible.”
That’s neither a power nor a purpose of government.
“The Congressional effort, to attempt to push the power into the hands of those who would preserve, struck me as noble”
And unconstitutional. Hypocrite.
AmVet - You cons have got to ask yourself one question: Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, punks?
February 14th, 2012
5:49 pm
All this “I’m so pro-life” guff is absurdly transparent.
Given that the poster has repeatedly written that he wants the hated “leftists” to all have abortions…
PC hint: Internet Explorer is hands down the second worst web browser in the history of the species. It has always held that title, as AOL has always been the title holder.
That it only marginally sucks in comparison now (finally) is still no reason to use it over Firefox or Chrome.
Thank you, that is all….
pogo
February 14th, 2012
5:51 pm
Sorry Jay, but this latest post is just another one of your standard daily lambastings of whichever of the republican presidential candidates you choose for the day so I won’t comment on it. It isn’t worth the time. Do you by any chance work for Media Matters? If not, you should. You could make some real contacts on that “tax exempt” progressive organization and their many members in the American Media. Afterall, they have operatives within the Whitehouse, Politico and NBC not to mention the failing Washington Post. No wonder polls show that the American people don’t trust the American news media anymore. The American people know liars when they see them.
But, on your earlier post on the DOE loan guarantee, I will comment. At this point, has SOCO accepted one dollar from the DOE? Are you sure they are going to accept or even need the loan? Just because they applied and were granted the guarantee does not mean they will take it. And if they do take the money, can you really compare SOCO to such “fly by night” companies such as Solyndra and Fisker? Obama gave loans to many companies such as Fisker (and their 100K electric cars) and Solyndra simply because they were his political supporters. He was just recycling Taxpayer money back to his campaign fund just as he has done with GE and General Motors.
And, as a person who worked in the Nuclear Power business for 3 decades I must say that I saw some of the most ignorant postings I have ever seen from the liberal/progressive commentators here today. For such an arrogant bunch of people who think that their ideas are superior to everyone who disagrees with them, they really, really don’t have a clue. As a whole Jay, most of your commentors are totally oblivious.
ty webb
February 14th, 2012
5:52 pm
the Schiavo issue was a definite overreach by the GOP. They were on the wrong side of it, it’s one of many positions that keeps me from identifying with the present day GOP. So well said on that, Jay…However,the “prancing” comment, just comes off as a bitter and partisan…so I give you C+ on this one.
A question?
February 14th, 2012
5:53 pm
Jay, I dont agree with trying to save schiavo. But that is a petty d bag of a move taking the pot shot at Bush. Shows how classless you are!
md
February 14th, 2012
5:53 pm
I read all that before midori…..have yet to see any real evidence that it wasn’t as described……until then, I tend to lean toward the navy spokesperson vs others that weren’t even there.
Midori
February 14th, 2012
5:54 pm
Racist Super Bowl Ad Backfires Gives Democrats Double Digit Lead In Michigan
http://www.politicususa.com/en/hoekstra-racist-ad-poll
you listening, Rick?
Bud Wiser
February 14th, 2012
5:54 pm
A hungry dog attacks all things that look like something to eat.
Arf arf, Bookman, you are playing the media stooge attack dog for the dimwittocrats like a maestro.
Josef
February 14th, 2012
5:55 pm
Aqua girl
Try to show a little respect for the dead. A lot of how you said what you said was not very nice regardless of what you may see…even if brain dead the corpse is worth dignity…
ragnar danneskjold
February 14th, 2012
5:55 pm
Dear Joe @ 5:47, we would agree that my group – the anti-abortion group – believe law that encourages extinguishing life is evil, and that your group – the “pro-choice” crowd, so long as the choice is for abortion – wishes to avoid discussion of the consequences for the individual who is extinguished. What made the Schiavo case different was that one party – the parents – wanted to take responsibility, and the husband who held the power – leftists are all about the virtues of power, aren’t they – found it inconvenient to allow her to live. Not noble.
Mr. Snarky
February 14th, 2012
5:56 pm
Sounds like Rags is getting his head handed to him. Darn shame.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 14th, 2012
5:56 pm
R. Danneskjold — “Dear Joe, I suspect you are a follower of John Rawls.”
You suspect incorrectly.
“Dear Joe, under what conditions does a lesser court, one formed by Congressional legislation, have jurisdiction to do anything?”
With respect to the Schiavo case? If there were evidence of abuse, yet multiple court proceedings failed to find even *one piece* of evidence pointing towards any abuse of Terri at all.
“Dear Joe @ various times, I do not doubt that you magnify the law above simple right and wrong. I magnify right (vs wrong) above the law.”
Then you betray your namesake.
“The law is not noble when it empowers private killing”
Nobility isn’t a purpose of the law. And what you term “private killing,” the spousal making of medical decisions for a spouse who cannot make their own, has a long, long history of legal and precedent to support it.
“where there is a reliable effort to preserve life.”
Irrelevant to the law and to the legal principles in operation here.
“Dear Joe @ 5:41, you shock me. I thought you surely believed merely breathing was commercial activity, thus allowing Obamacare a Constitutional basis.”
You would be well advised to inquire on such matters, as your ability in mind-reading is surely among the worst I have ever seen.
“A decent respect for a reasonable objection is an element of sound decision-making, obvious lacking in the Schiavo case.”
Rejected. Multiple court filings detail the patience and conciliation that Mr. Schiavo showed his in-laws, but at the end of the day, the decision was his alone. The objections of the in-laws carry no legal weight whatsoever, and they insisted on being given decision-making power.
One may *respect* objections without *acceding* to them.
Midori
February 14th, 2012
5:57 pm
but then md — we knew you would do that anyway.
didn’t we?
the navy wanted the signs – the navy’s boss was bush.
obama is cooking the numbers, re the jobs report. and obama is the boss of what agency?
yeah.
that’s the ticket.
and I’M Morgan Fairchild.
ragnar danneskjold
February 14th, 2012
5:57 pm
Dear Joe @ 5:48, you continue to avoid the obvious question – what is the jurisdiction of a court created by an act of Congress? Hypocrite.
Paul
February 14th, 2012
5:58 pm
ragnar 5:48
Thanks. I think you’ve laid out your position clearly. I disagree with that position – after N years of marriage, I hold the bond between husband and wife to be pretty sacred, without the intrusion of mom and dad into the most personal decisions of their adult children.
But thanks for the straight answer.
Kamchak
February 14th, 2012
5:58 pm
The American people know liars when they see them.
Absolutely, it’s why I scroll by 300+ word diatribes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…until then, I tend to lean…
Your choice.
LUCIFER
February 14th, 2012
5:58 pm
So Santorum got his panties in a bunch over a federal judge ignoring his edict. Santorum is a flash in the pan. He really is scary, with all his bible-thumping nonsense against gay rights, contraception, abortion and sexual practices being limited to the “missionary position.” What gives this guy the right to preach to us that we should live our lives following his moral compass? Rick, soon it will be time for you to exit stage left … and leave the GOP race to another flawed political practioner. Egads, another nine months of politics driving the airwaves … it’s enuff to drive one to drinking (although, for me, that would be a short putt.)
Peter Maiyo
February 14th, 2012
5:59 pm
True jay, and I remember the words of congressman John Lewis, when he said that this is nothing but a political mambo jambo with eyes in the next election when republicans would say, “you voted to kill Terri Schiavo”.
Ennis
February 14th, 2012
5:59 pm
Tommy Maddox @ 5:32 The reason we look at the past is so we don’t keep making the same mistakes over and over. Rick is a complete disaster that shouldn’t be fostered onto this nation. Besides, saving Terri would have been shoved onto the public, after congress got involved. There were a lot of undertones in that debate
ragnar danneskjold
February 14th, 2012
6:01 pm
Dear Joe @ 5:56, one true statement – the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth – “The objections of the in-laws carry no legal weight whatsoever, and they insisted on being given decision-making power.” Undoubted true. I agree that the law, as constituted today, does not care about right and wrong, is more about magnifying the rules the lifetime appointees prefer to lay down for society. And if I thought the courts were competent to make the law, I would find myself on your side.
Paul
February 14th, 2012
6:02 pm
ragnar
“Dear Joe @ 5:47, we would agree that my group – the anti-abortion group – believe law that encourages extinguishing life is evil, and that your group – the “pro-choice” crowd, so long as the choice is for abortion – wishes to avoid discussion of the consequences for the individual who is extinguished.”
I’ll ask you the same question I asked Scout weeks ago. Just trying to understand the principle when it’s extended to the specific.
Are you for banning all abortions, no exception, even in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger?