Dems co-sponsoring the Fascists' Schiavo bill

[RPankn]

There's so much background info to Teri Schiavo's story I wouldn't even know where to begin. But with respect to this bill, like the 2000 election and the gay marriage ban amendment, the Fascists are trying to take issues which are reserved to the States -- e.g., marriage, state court jurisdiction -- and toss them into the Federal courts, which, for the most part, have been stacked with Reagan, Bush and Junior's rightwing activist judges.

And you know the wingnuts will try to backdoor overturning Roe with this one. Because if a person in a PVS missing their cerebral cortex is defined as an "incapacitated person," then zygotes will be people too.

Speaking of which, I wonder if this case would have turned out different on the appellate level had it commenced under John Ellis' rightwing activist judges, instead of those it proceeded under, who were mostly Chiles appointees.

Anyway, here are the sellouts from the Dem side. There might be more, but these are the ones I know for certain who are Dems. What will the party hacks excuse this time be?

Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 3/15/2005

Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 3/10/2005

Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] - 3/10/2005

H.R.1151
Title: To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide the protections of habeas corpus for certain incapacitated individuals whose life is in jeopardy, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Weldon, Dave [FL-15] (introduced 3/8/2005) Cosponsors (126)

Related Bills: H.R.1332, S.539, S.653

Latest Major Action: 3/10/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

SUMMARY AS OF:
3/8/2005--Introduced.

WARNING: This summary is based upon a pre-publication edition of the measure provided by the House Bill Clerk and is subject to change.

Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to extend habeas corpus protections to persons who are subject to a court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the person's life.

Deems persons having custody in such cases to encompass parties so authorized or directed. States that there shall be no requirement to produce the body of the incapacitated person at the hearing.

Exempts from this Act those cases in which the incapacitated person indisputably executed a written advance directive while having capacity that clearly authorized the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or necessary medical treatment.

Defines "incapacitated person" to mean an individual presently incapable of making relevant decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment under applicable State law.

And then there's sleazy Mel's bill, which passed the Senate on a voice vote. Wonder how many Dems voted for it.

SUMMARY AS OF:
3/17/2005--Passed Senate, without amendment. (There is 1 other summary)

(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)

Grants jurisdiction to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo (Ms. Schiavo) for the alleged violation of any right of hers under the U.S. Constitution or laws relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

Grants standing to any parent of Ms. Schiavo to bring a suit under this Act. Allows suit to be brought against any other person: (1) who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain Ms. Schiavo's life; or (2) who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

Declares that in such a suit the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Ms. Schiavo's within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. Directs the District Court to entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.

Requires the District Court, after a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, to issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Ms. Schiavo under the U.S. Constitution and laws relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

Declares that, notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after its date of enactment.

Authorizes the District Court, upon the filing of such a suit or claim, to issue a stay of any State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain Ms. Schiavo's life pending the determination of the suit.

Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to: (1) create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States; (2) confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related to assisting suicide, or a State law regarding assisting suicide; or (3) constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation.

States that nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990.


S.653
Title: A bill for the relief of the family of Theresa Marie Schiavo.
Sponsor: Sen Martinez, Mel [FL] (introduced 3/17/2005) Cosponsors (18)
Related Bills: H.R.1151, H.R.1332, S.539
Latest Major Action: 3/17/2005 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Voice Vote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL ACTIONS: (color indicates Senate actions)
3/17/2005:
Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Voice Vote.
3/17/2005:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.

[Moses]

April 14, 2005

Majority Leader Asks House Panel to Review Judges

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, April 13 - Deflecting all questions about his ethical conduct and political future, Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, on Wednesday stepped up his crusade against judges, announcing that he had instructed the Judiciary Committee to investigate federal court decisions in the Terri Schiavo case and to recommend possible legislation.

At a crowded news conference, Mr. DeLay said he would not entertain questions about his political activities. It was his first question-and-answer session with reporters since one fellow Republican, Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, called for him to resign his leadership post and another, Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, said he should explain himself to the American people.

"I'm not here to discuss the Democrats' agenda," Mr. DeLay declared.

He has asserted that Democrats and the "liberal media" are orchestrating a campaign to discredit him by raising questions about possible ethics violations, including overseas travel financed by outside groups.



....Mr. DeLay, the No. 2 House Republican, has been embroiled in ethics controversies for months, ever since a grand jury in Texas indicted some of his top operatives. But the spotlight has intensified in recent weeks since he led Congress to intervene in the case of Ms. Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman who died after her feeding tube was withdrawn by court order.

Despite the unusual Congressional legislation, several federal courts refused to reopen the Schiavo case, enraging Mr. DeLay and other Republicans.

Mr. DeLay's subsequent criticisms of the courts - at one point he suggested that the judges responsible could be impeached and at another point said that they would be held responsible - have brought ridicule from Democrats. They have also prompted some prominent Republicans, including Mr. Bush and Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, to distance themselves from him.

Asked last week about Mr. DeLay's attacks on judges, Mr. Bush would only say that he believed in an independent judiciary, in a system of checks and balances, in judges who strictly interpreted the Constitution.

On Wednesday, Mr. DeLay seemed to adopt the president's language: "Of course I believe in an independent judiciary," he said. He also apologized for the impeachment comment, even as he insisted it was well within the purview of Congress to rein in the courts.

"Sometimes I get a little more passionate," Mr. DeLay said, "particularly during the moment and the day that Terri Schiavo was starved to death. Emotions were flowing."

"I said something in an inartful way," he added, "and I shouldn't have said it that way, and I apologize. I apologize for saying it that way. It was taken wrong, and I didn't explain or clarify my remarks as I'm clarifying them here."

Mr. DeLay was not specific about what legislative changes, if any, he would like to see emerge from the Judiciary Committee's review. But in announcing that he had asked Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., a Wisconsin Republican and the committee chairman, to examine the actions of federal judges in the Schiavo case, Mr. DeLay said the House had previously passed legislation limiting the jurisdiction of the courts and breaking up the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a bill that died in the Senate.

"We set the jurisdiction of the courts," Mr. DeLay said. "We set up the courts. We can unset the courts."

As to the ethics questions, Mr. DeLay repeated that he was "more than happy" to have the House ethics committee review those issues. But it cannot do so because the committee is embroiled in a fight over rules changes that critics say will discourage ethics inquiries. Democrats, upset that Republicans adopted the changes without their cooperation, are refusing to constitute the committee this session. The panel met Wednesday to try to resolve the impasse, but was unsuccessful.

"We're trying to find some common ground," said the chairman, Representative Doc Hastings, Republican of Washington. "We have been talking. As long as we can talk, I tend to be an optimist."

Democrats, meanwhile, sharply criticized the ethics rule changes on Wednesday at a news conference that featured Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, and the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. Ms. Pelosi warned that House Republicans, who rode to power in 1994 by portraying Democrats as arrogant, had become arrogant. "I have said for a long time their greed will be their downfall," she said.

At least one Republican, Mr. Shays, seemed to agree on Wednesday. "I'm no fan of Nancy Pelosi," he said. But, he added, "we said we would be different and we were when we started out. We are quickly becoming like they were when they were in the majority."

---

Katharine Q. Seelye contributed reporting for this article.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company