Federal decisions
Like many, I have given much thought to the Terri Schiavo case over the past few days. This case has evolved from a personal family matter to a public policy case spurring debate all over the place. On its face, the case is a right to die/right to live case. The issues under the surface (bioethical decision-making, Congressional actions, judicial review, etc.), however, are of great importance and likely to have some significant impact.
Kelly makes some good points here and links to some other blogger opinions, including here.
It goes without saying that the entire situation is tragic. But I strongly believe that the federal courts are making right and just decisions here, even though I am unsettled about how the past 15 years have played out between Mr. Schiavo and the parents. The petition to federal court consisted of five claims for relief based on constitutional and statutory deprivations, including claims that Mrs. Schiavo's had been denied her First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, denied the right to a fair and impartial trial, and denied procedural due process. The opinion in its entirety can be read here. Federal Judge James D. Whittemore's closing paragraph captures the essence of the opinion well:
This court appreciates the gravity of the consequences of denying injunctive relief. Even under these difficult and time strained circumstances, however, and notwithstanding Congress' expressed interest in the welfare of Theresa Schiavo, this court is constrained to apply the law to 12 the issues before it. As Plaintiffs have not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 2) must be DENIED.
Today, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a rehearing, and the Florida Senate defeated a bill by republicans that would prohibit patients like Schiavo from being denied food and water if they didn’t express their wishes in writing. The U.S. Supreme Court appears to be the last resort, and they have refused to hear the case on appeal from the state court three times in the past.
Kelly makes some good points here and links to some other blogger opinions, including here.
It goes without saying that the entire situation is tragic. But I strongly believe that the federal courts are making right and just decisions here, even though I am unsettled about how the past 15 years have played out between Mr. Schiavo and the parents. The petition to federal court consisted of five claims for relief based on constitutional and statutory deprivations, including claims that Mrs. Schiavo's had been denied her First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, denied the right to a fair and impartial trial, and denied procedural due process. The opinion in its entirety can be read here. Federal Judge James D. Whittemore's closing paragraph captures the essence of the opinion well:
This court appreciates the gravity of the consequences of denying injunctive relief. Even under these difficult and time strained circumstances, however, and notwithstanding Congress' expressed interest in the welfare of Theresa Schiavo, this court is constrained to apply the law to 12 the issues before it. As Plaintiffs have not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 2) must be DENIED.
Today, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a rehearing, and the Florida Senate defeated a bill by republicans that would prohibit patients like Schiavo from being denied food and water if they didn’t express their wishes in writing. The U.S. Supreme Court appears to be the last resort, and they have refused to hear the case on appeal from the state court three times in the past.
posted by Amanda at 7:19 PM
<< Home