Professor;
Do you believe that the Schiavo case is an instance of judicial "caprice and mistake," and that therefore Terri is a victim of an injustice, or that justice has been served?
Please don't cop out by arguing that since the SCOTUS didn't take the case that therefore justice had to have been served. The Dred Scot case, and the Japanese internment case each prove SCOTUS is fallible.
It's been looked at by 22 judges, plus the Supremes several times. Ithink [sic] that's pretty good. I think the risk of error is lower, too.
I await his reply.Professor;
If this review process is good enough for Terri then it is good enough for convicted murderers.
I DEMAND that you rescind your opposition to the death penalty, or rescind your opinion on the Terri Schiavo case.
You cannot REPEAT CANNOT hold both views without blatant contradiction.
If new DNA evidence in death-row cases is okay, then why didn't any judge allow any new evidence of Terri's condition in Terri's case?
AGAIN: it seems to me that death row inmates routinely get MORE DUE PROCESS than Terri got.
Therefore; if the degree of due process we give death-row inmates is too low to assure a caprice-less and mistake-free conclusion, how can you believe that Terri and her parents got sufficient DUE PROCESS?! This was the CRUX of the Congressional bill passed to re-open her case. They wanted her to get a review every bit as thorough as one given routinely to death-row inmates - who routinely get NEW EVIDENCE, such as DNA, introduced during their federal appeals.
And you seem to miss that. INCREDIBLE. You seem to endorse the idea that a convicted murderer is entitled to greater review of his case than Terri. BIZARRE. And inconsistent.
And you will need more than to rely on the wisdom of the late Charles Black to paper over it.
MORE HERE AT JAWA!
3 comments:
This comparison between the death penalty and Schiavo is rather frivolous. As a matter of law, the order to remove the feeding tube from Terri Schiavo is consistent with HER WISHES. The death penalty is carried out against the criminal's wishes.
wavemaker:
the question as to what terri's wishes were is exaclty the controversy, and many people - such as me - believe the court ERRED in deciding that terri wished to be disconnected from a feewding tube (only schiavo's testifdied to this; NO schindlers corrobeated this; this is very VERY ODD, to say the least).
thaqt being said, there is NOZTHING in floroda law which says that no one may feed terri manually - SANS feeding tube. yet the couyrt went outr of its way AND OUTSIDE THE LAW toi ensure that terri would die.
IN ADDITION, the issue at hand is DUE PROCESS - not what terri or michael may wiosh; that is to say whtether or not the plaitiff's received due process--- and in this regards IT MATTERS NOT wheter one is criminal and the other is civil for -- as McCarthy pointed out: the Consitution makes no such distiction; in fact such a distiction is ALIEN to the law.
Therefore, when you aregue that a murderer's rights and terri's rights differ YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG.
As you know, Daniel, I responded to your piece off-line, because I did not wish to embarrass you. But since you felt compelled to copy our private exchange and post it here, it is only fair that the entire exchange is posted as well...
I privately emails you at 4:32 P.M.:
Daniel, with all due respect, you're way over your head. An individual cannot be denied due process rights when her fate is being determined by her guardian --- in law, the decision is ON HER BEHALF, and it is not being made by the government. But you'll continue to disagree, because you misunderstand fundamentally -- I am not posting this on your blog, because I do not want to encourage your continued argument in pubic --- and your challenge to Glenn is a feeble attempt to drive traffic to your blog. Grow up, young man.
YOU responded to my email AT 4:58 P.M.:
I am making no attempt to drive traffic to my site. Fuck you on that account!
I am trying to get Glenn to accept that his positions on Schiavo and the Death Penalty are incompatible.
My feeble mind - and that of Andrew C. McCarthy (see NRO) agree on this entirely.
So, FUCK YOU AGAIN!
And BTW: I think I'll post this email exchange, too - JUST FOR THE TRAFFIC IT WILL GENERATE - heh!
I privately emailed you at 5:00 p.m.:
atta boy
You privately emailed me again at 5:00 p.m.:
with all due respect - which is NONE - the court decided the facts, and they blew it - just like the OJ case!
Or Dred Scot or the WW2 internment cases if you prefer.
IOW: courts are fallible, and so are judges. Greer was wrong - and in a confict of interest in this case. As is hubby Michael.
And fuck you again!
You privately emailed me again at 5:03 p.m.:
3.25.2005 - INSTAPUNDIT'S HYPOCRISY IS "RIDICULOUS ON ITS FACE"
ANDREW C. McCARTHY, NRO:
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not distinguish between the lives of capital murderers and the lives of other persons. They don't mention "criminal" and "civil" distinctions. In this context, they command simply that no person shall be deprived of "life...without due process of law."
There is no reason in the text of the Constitution to believe that "due process of law" should have a different meaning depending on whether the life to be taken by state action is that of a convicted criminal or that of some other person. Complementing that textual consideration are the equities involved. Given the absence of any apparent reason for having one set of due process requirements for murderers and another set for everyone else, if society nevertheless decides to have different requirements, why in the world would we think the murderers should get the better process? Such a notion is ridiculous on its face.
This HYPOCRITICAL position - which affords more rights to convicted murderers than to Terri - is EXACTLY "INSTAPUNDIT" Glenn Reynolds' position. And I say it stinks.
BUT IT'S EVEN WORSE: because Glenn Reynolds BELIEVES that because of "inevitable caprice and mistake" in the judicial system, the death penalty (while abstractly just) can never be 100% correct and that therefore it is inevitable that innocent people might be wrongly put to death, and that therefore to avoid this inevitability no one convicted of any crime should ever be put to death. (YUP: gun-toting-Glenn opposes the death penalty.)
SO GLENN IS DOUBLY HYPOCRITCAL, AND BOTH TIMES - ON BOTH LEVELS - HE FAVORS MURDERERS!
First, Glenn argues that judicial reviews are inadequate for murderers, but then argues that judicial reviews were adequate for Terri!
Second, Glenn argues that because death is irreversible and mistake is inevitable, no one should be subject to death as a penalty which is ordered by any court of law, but if death is ordered by a court of law in a civil case, then it's OKAY.
In other words, Reynolds believes that convicted murderers should NEVER get the death penalty because the CRIMINAL judicial system is imperfect, but that the judicial system is adequate in deciding CIVIL matters of life of death.
Well, Professor, since the THRESHOLD FOR EVIDENCE IS LOWER IN CIVIL CASES THAN IN CRIMINAL CASES - (hearsay is often allowed - as it was in the Schiavo case, and you can't plead the 5th, for example) - IT MEANS THAT THE LIKELIHOOD OF "CAPRICE AND MISTAKE" IS ACTUALLY HIGHER IN CIVIL CASES THAN IN CRIMINAL CASES - NOT LOWER.
Which means that when it comes to trying to avoid irreversible damage to a plaintiff that Glenn Reynolds has it exactly BACKWARDS on this issue: Reynolds blithely accepts too little and too few Due Process protections for Terri, and simultaneously grants way too much for convicted murderers. THIS IS PURE HYPOCRISY.
Which puts Reynolds squarely in the pathetic Left-wing/pro-death/pro--murderer crowd. YUP: to me - except for his support for the GWOT and the 2nd Amendment, Reynolds is an old-fashioned Leftie through and through. Which, after all, is what Glenn himself always said he was whenever others called him a conservative just because he was a hawk. Well, the Schiavo case PROVES he was right: Reynolds is a bleeding-heart liberal who would give more rights to convicted murderers than to Terri.
SEE MORE BELOW - HERE and HERE.
# posted by reliapundit
You privately emailed me again at 5:07 p.m.:
if I wanted to keep traffic numbers up I'd kiss glenn's ass - not expose his hypocrisy!
in fact; a few other "top 100" bloggers have urged me to cool it because in their opinion taking on the blogfather will be bad for my "business."
so your VILE attack on my position - that it was to get my blog traffic up is WAY WAY OFF!
I think the truth is more important.
I privately emailed you at 5:09 p.m.:
then seek it
You posted on my blog at 5:11 p.m.:
up your sanctimonius ass!
I privately emailed you at 5:19 pm.(and post for the first time here on your blog at 6:46 p.m.):
it's sanctimoniOUS.
Keep trying.
Let's just say it is to humor my ignorance, but could you tell me: what is the state action in regard to the application of the Florida statute that provides for a guardian to make a life-or-death decision on behalf of one in PVS. And where specifically do you find the reversible error in either the district court's determination that the applicants failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits that would entitle them to injunctive relief, or the circuit court's review of that decision?
Edify me, please. (no response)
I privately emailed you at 6:02 p.m.(and post here at 6:47 p.m.):
Daniel:
1. If you had read the facts, you would understand that feeding the patient manually would KILL HER, because she is UNABLE TO SWALLOW. Try to put food down her throat and you would choke her.
2. Terri is not the Plaintiff. Her parents, as "interested parties," were the Plaintiffs. Their burden was not met. Terri was represented in the PROCESS, pursuant to the Florida statute, by the Court, under a procedure that allows the guardian to ask the Court to hold a trial to determine what the best interests of the ward are. Michael Schiavo was not seeking to disconnect feeding. He asked the Court to make that determination. This trial occurred. It was reviewed on appeal and upheld. Blah blah blah. Have you read the entire record in this case?
Here's a nice link to much of it: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
3. What matters first in a due process claim is a determination that the action being complained of is a STATE ACTION. In this case, you would have to argue that the statute that permits the guardian to put the issue before the Court is unconstitutional -- or the process that the Court unertook violated due process. The latter was reviewed. It was found that the process was "due." You disagree. Good for you. I admire your strong beliefs. But if you confine yourself to arguing the LEGAL issues, you are pissing up a rope.
So that you won't assume I am a LIBERAL like you try to pin on Glenn (I have no idea what he is), I serves 6 years in a state legislature as a hard-right conservative Republican and maintained a 100% pro-life voting record. So I am not coming at this from a political or ideological angle. But I have been litigating in federal court for 20 years, so I've got at least that life experience upon which to base my analysis.
How bout you, Dan? I'm guessing you're recently starting out, full of piss and vinegar, and ready to take on the world. Good for you. I'd be surprised if you were a law school graduate, because your perspective ignores fundamentals. Unlike (way too many) people posting comments on blogs, I have no interest in engaging in vitriolic insult-trading in the comments. I don't need to win an argument. I just thought (perhaps incorrectly) that you might be different and would care to take a more circumspect look at the legal issues. Read the links to original material.
But you would be well served to resist the temptation to respond to criticism with "fuck you's." They serve no purpose, and reflect poorly on your own ability to argue your point.
Are you different, or the same as everyone else? (no response).
Respectfully,
Wavemaker
Post a Comment