Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

mysterman,
There are lots of rulings from the USSC that use the changing standards as part of the basis for why the rule. Those changing standards often include reinterpretations over time of what words mean. "all men" has a different meaning today than it did in 1780.

Yes they are! Otherwise we'd still have slavery and segregation, kangaroo courts and public whippings. You're missing the beauty of what the forefathers set up. A set of laws that could evolve.

So,the USSC is supposed to use FOREIGN law to decide what our constitution means?
The USSC is supposed to use an unratified treaty as basis for our laws?
I dont think so,and there is nowhere in the constitution that allows that.

Who cares where the law originated as long as it makes sense, mysteryman?

Many of our laws are an amalgam of previous laws from all over the world. To imagine that they are not is to deny the fact that there was once a time when the US didn't exist. We didn't just make everything up from scratch.

Cycloptichorn

Now, come on - that's blasphemy :wink:

http://www.iejs.com/Law/origins_of_common_law.htm

Legal systems based on the laws of England are typically described as belonging to the common law tradition (Glaeser, 2001, p. 3). Common law differs from statutory law not only in its foundation, but more importantly in its views. It is law seen from the perspective of a judge faced with a controversy, or a jury seeking to arrive at a verdict, not from the point of view of sovereign monarch faced with civil war. In court, statutes are law when statutes are there, but new cases come up which statutes do not cover, and, of course, what statutes themselves mean for a case requires interpretation. Common law is unwritten law (Stoner, 1992, p. 7).

Though it has suffered at the hands of legislators, common law is still followed in all major English speaking countries around the world

I agree,they are.BUT,our laws now are based on our constitution.
Should we base our laws on the laws of a country or a system we dislike?
Should we base our laws on the old USSR,or the Taliban?
After all,they were both internationally recognized govts at one time?

What about the laws of England,with their vestiges of feudal still on the books?

While its true our laws are an amalgam of international laws,those laws have been written to fit our form of govt and our society.
To say now that foreign law should be allowed to determine our law is wrong.

panzade is correct; our laws were copied from the British common law. That much I remember from my Business Law course over forty years ago.

Tico said: .."will often consult sources outside of the U.S.A. to figure out which way to rule."

Is that what's bothering you MM? Do you really believe he was serious? Did he present any proof?
I mean, I know justice Kennedy believes in keeping abreast of the law in other parts of the world, but I don't see the Constitution being usurped by foreign judicial process.

The USSC will use foreign laws to help give guidance on issues. They do not use them as the sole basis to rule a certain way.

Have any of you even bothered to read a decision by the USSC? You might find it destroys a lot of your preconceived notions. All the USSC decisions can be found at findlaw.com. Try reading one and see how they are reasoned vs how you think they are. Debra and I tried to have a conversation earlier in this thread about Cruzan case which applies directly to Schiavo. Go read it.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=497&invol=261

I've come to seek out Parados's posts - actually, they're the one reason I keep coming back to this thread. They're exceptionally well-informed, butressed by detailed references used in consistent argumentation. Sometimes (s)he gets a little snotty when his/her patience runs out, but seein' how (s)he's often confronted with peers who don't make half the effort of coming up with the relevant information and following through an argument, I can forgive that. Very glad you're here, Parados.

Thats a propos of nothing in particular except that I don't think I've said thanks yet - and I realised it <nods>.

March 29, 2005
What's Going On?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Democratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their midst. The desire to show respect for other people's beliefs all too easily turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself.

We can see this failing clearly in other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, a culture of tolerance led the nation to ignore the growing influence of Islamic extremists until they turned murderous.

But it's also true of the United States, where dangerous extremists belong to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great political influence.

Before he saw the polls, Tom DeLay declared that "one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America." Now he and his party, shocked by the public's negative reaction to their meddling, want to move on. But we shouldn't let them. The Schiavo case is, indeed, a chance to highlight what's going on in America.

One thing that's going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce laws that religious extremists oppose. Randall Terry, a spokesman for Terri Schiavo's parents, hasn't killed anyone, but one of his former close associates in the anti-abortion movement is serving time for murdering a doctor. George Greer, the judge in the Schiavo case, needs armed bodyguards.

Another thing that's going on is the rise of politicians willing to violate the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious right.

Everyone knows about the attempt to circumvent the courts through "Terri's law." But there has been little national exposure for a Miami Herald report that Jeb Bush sent state law enforcement agents to seize Terri Schiavo from the hospice - a plan called off when local police said they would enforce the judge's order that she remain there.

And the future seems all too likely to bring more intimidation in the name of God and more political intervention that undermines the rule of law.

The religious right is already having a big impact on education: 31 percent of teachers surveyed by the National Science Teachers Association feel pressured to present creationism-related material in the classroom.

But medical care is the cutting edge of extremism.

Yesterday The Washington Post reported on the growing number of pharmacists who, on religious grounds, refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or morning-after pills. These pharmacists talk of personal belief; but the effect is to undermine laws that make these drugs available. And let me make a prediction: soon, wherever the religious right is strong, many pharmacists will be pressured into denying women legal drugs.

And it won't stop there. There is a nationwide trend toward "conscience" or "refusal" legislation. Laws in Illinois and Mississippi already allow doctors and other health providers to deny virtually any procedure to any patient. Again, think of how such laws expose doctors to pressure and intimidation.

But the big step by extremists will be an attempt to eliminate the filibuster, so that the courts can be packed with judges less committed to upholding the law than Mr. Greer.

We can't count on restraint from people like Mr. DeLay, who believes that he's on a mission to bring a "biblical worldview" to American politics, and that God brought him a brain-damaged patient to help him with that mission.

What we need - and we aren't seeing - is a firm stand by moderates against religious extremism. Some people ask, with justification, Where are the Democrats? But an even better question is, Where are the doctors fiercely defending their professional integrity? I think the American Medical Association disapproves of politicians who second-guess medical diagnoses based on video images - but the association's statement on the Schiavo case is so timid that it's hard to be sure.

The closest parallel I can think of to current American politics is Israel. There was a time, not that long ago, when moderate Israelis downplayed the rise of religious extremists. But no more: extremists have already killed one prime minister, and everyone realizes that Ariel Sharon is at risk.

America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.

E-mail: [email protected]

It is odd that you take issue with my point.

It is an undeniable fact.

It is illegal to starve animals. No quibbling will change that fact. The contrast deserves to be stated.

Nimh--

You are definitely right, and most of the people I know were very surprised to see this polling. I don't know a single person who agrees with the ruling....and it's widely discussed. I don't mind what opinions people have about it, but I was surprised. The statement I made was based on the views I read here, though, at the time. (But, I did expect those views to be much more ideologically aligned than they have proven to be.)

Lash, do you mind if I deny your undeniable fact?

Not the fact per se, as it is clearly undeniable, but rather I deny it's relevance to the Schiavo case.

I also deny that there are better options available. A lethal injection (as an animal in her situation would receive) would certainly seem like a nicer way for her to die, but a) That is illegal for lots of good (and bad) reasons, and b) if she is in a vegetative state then she feels no hunger or thirst anyway, unlike the "animal" you are presenting as a comparable situation.

No. You can't accurately deny the fact.

It may not have any relevance for you--and that's fine.

I'm glad you're so sure she can't feel her splitting, dried lips, or the rupturing of soft tissue in her nose and eyes. I'm pretty sure she can, and it bothers me. Starving is bad enough, but losing the fluid in your body is much worse. It is torture. Which is why it is illegal to do it to animals.

EorI, The right to lifers are ignoring all the medical and legal facts of this case; it's hopeless to argue with people who are hell-bent on keeping Terri alive for their cause. They've thrown every dirt and irrational argument out into the wind to see if it'll catch, but alas, the kite keeps falling to the ground.

Isn't everyone a Right to Lifer?

If you can't argue with the message, make up a base motive for your opponent. You don't have to prove it, and no one can disprove it. "Jesus only preached what he did because he knew that there was a book deal at the end. It was a cynical attempt to use people who were truly needy to advance his own selfish career."

Yes, we're all right to lifers, but agree with the laws and the doctors. In Florida, the spouse has the right to speak for his/her spouse. That's the first fundamental law of Florida. The doctors that have EXAMINED Terri have concluded she is in a vegetated state, and she does not feel pain, does not feel hunger or thirst. That's what the doctors are saying. All the "other" right to lifers are saying other things that doesn't jive with the law or the doctors.