U.S. District Court Judge James Whittemore has defied Congress by not staying Terri Schiavo's starvation execution for the time it takes him to hold a full hearing on her case, a leading Republican senator said Tuesday.
"You have judicial tyranny here," Santorum told WABC Radio in New York. "Congress passed a law that said that you had to look at this case. He simply thumbed his nose at Congress."
"What the statute that [Whittemore] was dealing with said was that he shall hold a trial de novo," the Pennsylvania Republican explained. "That means he has to hold a new trial. That's what the statute said."
"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,'" Santorum said.
"That's nice for him to say that But that's not what Congress told him to do," he added. "Judges should obey the law. And this judge - in my mind - simply ignored the law."
This is when it comes back to that problem with the Senate not having a Quoram.
The vote was 2-1. There were only 3 Senators present. Oops, this may not be a law.
It's funny how Santorum wants to scream that the Judge ignored the law, but as usual, this is merely rhetoric.
From the cesspool of the "Liberal Media" comes this story from ABC News:
In a 13-page ruling issued at dawn, U.S. District Judge James Whittemore acknowledged the gravity of the consequences in denying the request for an emergency order to restore the feeding tube. Doctors say Schiavo, 41, would likely remain alive for one to two weeks without it.
But Whittemore said he was obliged to follow the law and issue the order only if the Schindlers could show their overall case was likely to succeed in federal court, which they had not.
"This court concludes that Theresa Schiavo's life and liberty interests were adequately protected by the extensive process provided in the state courts," he said.
This is where the Republicans in Congress refuse to acknowledge a difference between a court not acting within its mandate and their not liking the decision.
Then again, theyhe may like it just fine, because it provides them with political fodder. I again point to the fact that they didn't simply pass a law that would require anyone in this condition with similar circumstances be protected until the end of their natural lives.
Oh wait, Insurance Lobbies and the Medical Care Industry wouldn't have that. Ah, the power of the mighty dollar.
-The Oklahoma Hippy
"Oops, this may not be a law."
ReplyDelete??
You're kidding right?
If anyone in the senate, including the one vote you claim dissented, wanted a full vote of the entire senate, he or she could just stand there and filibuster to make his or her dissention known. Unfortunately, both the Senate Majority Leader and the Senate Minority Leader wanted this bill to pass.
Second, you can't grandstand against the GOP for taking politically advantageous stances and then turn around and embrace your beloved Democrat Party because both do it. If the GOP is so bad off for taking political advantage of any given situation, then the Democrats are equally as guilty. If you'll recall, the Democrats advocated talking points opposing the Iraq war not on principled grounds alone, but for political gain too. People in glass houses shouldn't through aborted fetuses.
Yeah... Democrats were trying to make political hay out of going to war with Iraq.
ReplyDeleteThat's why you'll so clearly remember me being so excited that ALMOST EVERY DEMOCRATIC MEMBER OF CONGRESS VOTED TO GO.
The reason I got behind Howard Dean was because he was Anti-war when the entire Democratic Party was afraid to be.
You are on the wrong side of this issue. You have sold out your intellect to patisanship and demagoguery.
Pointing out rightly that the judge disobeyed a law duely passed by congress is a "rampage"? Congress ordered a trial "de novo" which mean a new trial. The judge did not due that.
ReplyDeleteTypically, a de novo review doesn't mandate a new trial, rather a review of the original trial court's record without any deference to the trial court's conclusions of law. In normal appeals, the court must show a certain consideration to the lower court's conclusion of laws. The de novo appeal allows for a new conclusion of law if warranted, without the wasted time of a whole new trial. Depending on the situation, the new court may hear oral arguments for any new information to be considered. Terri's Law doesn't make clear whether it will be a new trial or simply a de novo review. It just says, "In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo" (Sec. 2, lines 18-19). So absent some clear determination whether Congress meant a new trial or simply an appeal de novo, I'm not sure that the parties are entitled to a whole new trial.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the federal judge in the case has only ruled on one motion -- whether to temporarily reinsert the feeding tube until the federal case has been adjudicated. If Congress had wished for the state court decision to be stayed until the federal case was concluded, they should have provided that this is not only a de novo review, but also a suspensive appeal, which stays the execution of the underlying judgment. If they can think far ahead enough to provide de novo review, they should have thought far enough ahead to suspend the state court order.
And again, the judge has only ruled on this ONE motion, not the final outcome of the case. So we can't say yet that the judge didn't do what he was supposed to do -- it's just one motion.