It's a NEW Day!!

March 27, 2005 11:59 AM

I really don't want to write about Terri Schiavo because her situation is so terribly, terribly sad, and so totally no one's business except her family and the courts granted jurisdiction by law to settle family disputes of this nature. None of the rest of us has any right to judge Mrs. Schiavo's husband or her parents.

But one note from a kind of academic point of view . . . if you can tolerate legalese, the various court rulings on Mrs. Schiavo's situation make interesting reading. People seem very quick these days to say, "How can the courts act like this?" But before throwing around the term "activist judge," I believe that people should at least bother to read the many pages of methodical reasoning that back up each court decision (including, of course, the dissenting opinions of the few judges that have not agreed with the final rulings).

What emerges is a much more clear-cut picture of the situation than many culture-war drama-queens would like to paint. A couple points . . .

- Some congressmen are now saying that the federal courts have deliberately disregarded the intent of the "special legislation" passed last week. In fact, one of the court rulings includes an extensive excerpt from the Congressional record showing that an early draft of the legislation included a specific requirement that a federal court order Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube to be re-connected. This provision was deliberately removed, with the intent that the court would be free to make its own decision on the matter.

Sadly, I'm willing to bet that the angry congressmen are not deliberately lying about the issue of intent . . . they probably just weren't paying attention to the actual wording of the law they were passing.

- It is clear that the attorneys representing Mrs. Schiavo's parents had no clear legal theory as to why earlier court rulings should be overturned. They were simply throwing out everything they could think of and hoping something would stick. For example, the assertion was made that Michael Schiavo was violating Mrs. Schiavo's rights under the "Americans with Disabilities Act." The court found multiple reasons to disagree with the this, but the most basic one was the fact that the ADA governs public entities and public accommodations. The court was forced to point out the embarrassingly obvious fact that "Defendant Michael Schiavo . . . is neither a public entity . . . nor a public accommodation."

TRACKBACK (0)


	March 27, 2005 11:59 AM I really don't want to write about Terri Schiavo because her situation is so terribly, terribly sad, and so totally no one's business except her family and the courts granted jurisdiction by law to settle family disputes of this nature. None of the rest of us has any right to judge Mrs. Schiavo's husband or her parents. But one note from a kind of academic point of view . . . if you can tolerate legalese, the various court rulings on Mrs. Schiavo's situation make interesting reading. People seem very quick these days to say, "How can the courts act like this?" But before throwing around the term "activist judge," I believe that people should at least bother to read the many pages of methodical reasoning that back up each court decision (including, of course, the dissenting opinions of the few judges that have not agreed with the final rulings). What emerges is a much more clear-cut picture of the situation than many culture-war drama-queens would like to paint. A couple points . . . - Some congressmen are now saying that the federal courts have deliberately disregarded the intent of the "special legislation" passed last week. In fact, one of the court rulings includes an extensive excerpt from the Congressional record showing that an early draft of the legislation included a specific requirement that a federal court order Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube to be re-connected. This provision was deliberately removed, with the intent that the court would be free to make its own decision on the matter. Sadly, I'm willing to bet that the angry congressmen are not deliberately lying about the issue of intent . . . they probably just weren't paying attention to the actual wording of the law they were passing. - It is clear that the attorneys representing Mrs. Schiavo's parents had no clear legal theory as to why earlier court rulings should be overturned. They were simply throwing out everything they could think of and hoping something would stick. For example, the assertion was made that Michael Schiavo was violating Mrs. Schiavo's rights under the "Americans with Disabilities Act." The court found multiple reasons to disagree with the this, but the most basic one was the fact that the ADA governs public entities and public accommodations. The court was forced to point out the embarrassingly obvious fact that "Defendant Michael Schiavo . . . is neither a public entity . . . nor a public accommodation." TRACKBACK (0)		Your Words