Bookman

Can one of the legal eagles we have 'round here opine on this?

When the parents appeal to the Supreme Court, could the court use that opportunity to comment on the constitutionality of the act of Congress that put the matter before Federal Court? Is it likely that they would?

Frito

Oh, they will. Likely it will be a denial of cert, so they won't even hear the case... but as one of my fellow students pointed out, it might be the longest denial of cert ever... and in joking that Scalia will write a dissent to add to it. (Which is unheard of)

If they do actually hear the case, I have the feeling that they would rule on the constitutionality of the bill. There are a lot of things wrong with the bill. First of all it cuts near a Bill of Attainder (thought it has been a while since I have dealt with that), the Congress passed it outside of a quarum and it also might unconstitutionally increase the power of the federal judiciary over the state, which is a big no-no in federalism.

So if they hear it, the most interesting thing is if Scalia's head explodes between his activist catholic mindset and his conservative state's rights mindset. I would say it would be nice if he took out the entire right wing of the court with him when his cranium bursts, but with Bush in office... I won't.

King Rat

I wonder if the mods should create a temporary Schiavo forum? I think there is now a thread in every forum.

Matt the Medic

It wouldn't be a bad idea...I'll pass it along to the powers that be.

Hooboy !!

This could be the straw that broke the iron grip (to mix metaphors) that the religious right has held on the GOP.

I feel very sad for Terri's family and I believe that Terri's rights are being violated, but it would be a very dangerous precedent to set. As much as it offends me that Michael is being given permission by the state of Florida to murder his wife, it would offend me even more for the state of Florida's rights to be underminded by the federal government.

I hope Terri's death results in some new laws being passed that promotes the "philosophy of life" by requiring a living will in cases like these. In the absence of a living will, I think the state should err on the side of caution and preserve life, regardless of the wishes of the family.

I am curious who is currently responsible for Terri's medical expenses. I wonder if euthanasia by default would occur where people simply refused to assume the costs of preserving life. I say this, because the state should not assume responsibility for the costs of preserving life. In the case of Terri though, where the husband is not willing, then her parents certainly would have. Were no one willing to assume the costs, then euthanasia would occur by default.

Bookman

Can we please keep this one about the legal nuances of the Supreme Court appeal? You've got several choices of other places to say this sort of thing without risk of derailing this thread or causing it to be merged into the massive one.

Obviously, you can post whatever you want whereever you want (IANAM), but I would appreciate it. Thanks!

Marching Folly

Hehe, in that respect it's sort of like the Cali medical marijuana case.



I would agree that them not hearing the case is the most likely outcome. They already rejected it (though it was less politicized then than now, and the federal courts hadn't been involved), and they need 4 Justices to hear the case. Scalia and Thomas seem pretty likely, but I have some doubts even about Rehnquist (because of both states rights and defence of the judiciary), and Kennedy/O'Conner probably wouldn't want to hear the case.

Or on the other hand, perhaps the relatively liberal and moderate Justices on the courts want to give Congress a severe beating? That would not be something one would normally expect, but in these extraordinary circumstances I wouldn't rule it out.

But then what do I know - predicting what the Supreme Court will do is always an art. :huh:


And I would like to second the suggestion of creating a temporary Schiavo forum. That seems like a good idea to me.

Bookman

I don't know -- everything I've ever read about Thomas says he is very much a states' rights guy. I can't see him opining that the Congress had any right to do what they did.

Interloper

"murder his wife" Pathetic... hook, line and sinker as always.

ETA : Personally... I don't think the SCOTUS is going to touch this again. They've already denied it a few times, I don't see why they'll step in this time. I think everyone who is pushing for this is going to have to face cold hold reality fairly soon.

pug846

The chances that the Supreme Court grants cert is about as likely as it was in Bush v. Gore. Kidding. (I think?) That being said, I would be shocked if the Court hears the case. Why? It’s clearly frivolous. Even the dissenting judge in the Eleventh Circuit was unable to explain how the family members might even conceivably win at trial—every claim they assert has zero merit. Even Scalia and Thomas would see that this case is frivolous.

Regardless, even if the high court granted cert., they would not pass on the constitutionality of congress’s most recent foray into making a complete laughing stock of the Republican’s support of state’s rights. The district court judge only denied the family’s attempt at a temporary restraining order. In laymen’s terms, that means the judge did not pass on the final merit of the case, but only rejected the family’s attempt to preserve the status quo while the full trial goes on. In other words, the family was trying to keep her alive so the district court judge could sit through a longer proceeding to be able to fully decide the merits of the suit. This is important because, as the district court judge here noted, courts do not declare statutes unconstitutional in temporary-restraining-order proceedings. They assume they’re constitutional. So, even if the act in question was clearly unconstitutional, the court system, including the Supreme Court, would assume it was constitutional. Later, during the full trial, the courts could then pass on the constitutionality of the act.

Edited to add: just as an aside, but it’s not unheard for judges to write dissents to denial of certs. In fact, just recently Justice Stevens wrote a dissent in the denial of cert. to the cases dealing with the constitutionality of President Bush’s appointment of Justice Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit with a recess appointment.