Pat Buchanan: The Execution of Terri Schiavo

[Sam Spade]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-4_1_05_PB.html

April 1, 2005
The Execution of Terri Schiavo
By Pat Buchanan

Terri Schiavo is dead. She did not die a natural death, unless you believe a court order to cut off food and water to a disabled woman until she dies of starvation and thirst is natural.

No, Terri Schiavo was executed by the state of Florida. Her crime? She was so mentally disabled as to be unworthy of life in the judgment of Judge George Greer. The execution was carried out at Woodside Hospice. An autopsy will reveal that Terri's vital organs shut down for lack of food and water. She did not die of the brain damage she suffered 15 years ago. She was put to death. We have crossed a watershed in America.

Michael Schiavo's argument that Greer found compelling was that this is what Terri wanted and she had told him so, though Michael never mentioned this until eight years after she was disabled.

Did Terri, at 26, really tell the man to whom she swore lifelong fidelity to find a way to kill her if she became handicapped? Is that what she had in mind when they pledged to stand by each other "in sickness and in health, 'til death do us part"?

Was Terri that different from her mom, dad, brother and sister, who fought with all they had to keep her alive so they could take care of her for all the years she had left? Why, one wonders, did this severely handicapped woman fight for two weeks against the dying of the light?

America is a great country because she is good country, and if ever she ceases to be good, she will cease to be great, Alexis de Toqueville is quoted as saying. Are we that America today? Are we the same kind of people? Would the country we grew up in have done this to a disabled woman?

Hubert Humphrey, a passionate liberal, once said, "The moral test of government is how (it) treats those who are in the dawn of life ... those who are in the twilight of life ... and those who are in the shadows of life."

In America, three in 10 in the dawn of life never see the light of day. They are destroyed in the womb because their very existence embarrasses or would encumber their parents. In the twilight of life, we have begun to provide our elderly ill with the means of assisted suicide. In Europe, euthanasia has become involuntary in some nursing homes. In the shadows of life -- the sick, the needy, the handicapped -- there is now in this land we once called "God's country" a chance the state will put you to death.

The motivations of the good folks praying for Terri outside the hospice one can understand. The motives of her parents one can understand. Even the motives of Michael Schiavo one can understand. He wants to be rid of Terri to start a new life with his new family.

What is inexplicable is why he did not get a divorce and let her go. What is inexplicable is the behavior of the media talking heads, who seemed so desperately anxious that the judge's ruling not be reversed and that Terri die. Why were they so pro-death?

One must not interfere in a family decision, they say. But these are the same folks who always demand interference if a father takes a belt to discipline his 14-year-old delinquent son.

This is what Terri would have wanted, they say. We have no right to interfere. But what Terri would have wanted is unclear and in dispute. And if there is disagreement, why not come down on the side of life? Why come down on the side of death, which is final and forever? Why were so many progressives on the side of death for Terri Schiavo?

Conservatives are hypocrites, they charge. The Right opposes judicial activism and preaches states' rights. But in Terri's case, the Right clamored for judicial activism and rejected states' rights.

But this is absurd. The judicial activist in Terri's case is Greer, who sentenced a brain-damaged woman to death by starvation and dehydration. If this is not judicial activism, in violation of a citizen's right to life, due process of law, and not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, what is?

And what is there left to say about that angel of death, the American Civil Liberties Union? As Nat Hentoff writes, the ACLU, "which would be passionately criticizing state court decisions and demanding due process if Terri were a convict on death row, has shamefully served as co-counsel for her husband, Michael Schiavo, in his insistent desire to have her die."

But whose rights were in mortal peril here? Why was the ACLU not at the door of that hospice, denouncing Greer the way it would be at the door of a penitentiary denouncing Jeb Bush, if the ACLU even suspected an innocent man was being put to death?

We have turned a sad page in the history of America's decline.

[Blue Rectangle]

I don't usually agree with Pat, but I do here.

[dazzleman]

I don't usually agree with Pat, but I do here.

Me too.  There is an ugly sickness on the left, when they can so passionately want this woman dead, but at the same time fight against execution of brutal murderers.

As I've said earlier, I don't consider food and water - something that every human being needs - to be life support.  Breathing tubes, respirators, even some types of medication are life support, and those I could in good conscience withhold, but to starve a person to death is barbaric.

This is yet another example of rampant judicial activism.  I often disagree with Pat Buchanan, but here he is right on.

[Democratic Hawk]

I've never really discussed Terri Schiavo but I'll give you my opinion.

I think that the way Terri was allowed to die was awful - there is nothing comendable about depriving a human being of nutrition to the point that she dies

In this case, you had her husband, Michael, who argued, and won, that Terri wouldn't want to live like that and her parents, who argued that she wanted to live. Terri had not made a living will - so I suppose we'll never know her wishes for certain

The problem I have with Michael Schiavo is that he was in an extra-marital relationship and has children from this relationship and thus, the suspicion that he was acting in his own interest rather than his wife's can be levelled against him. Whatever happened to for better, for worse; in sickness and in health and 'til death do us part? - and  not to mention an open act of adultery. So morally, if not legally, Schiavo forfeited his right as spouse

This brings me to Terri's parents, who in the circumstances would have been more appropriate custodians. However, if she were my daughter  I wouldn't have wanted Terri to live the way she has for the past 15 years with minimal, if any, improvement in her condition and, if Terri's fate struck me, I wouldn't want to live like that

My father was terminally ill with cholangiocarcinoma for over two years; with some quality of life until it metastatised into his liver and spine. From then on walking was painful and difficult. Since November of last year, he became effectively paralysed with no feeling below his waist at all. This year his condition deteriorated and he died on 19th March gone and, to be honest, the last few days of his life were more harrowing than the aftermath

Whether Terri's death was an act of mercy or murder is a matter of personal conscience. There is no right or wrong about it. My thoughts are with those who loved her at this time

As far as politicians getting embroiled, I'm saddened that some, especially on the Right, have exploited Terri Schiavo. As to whether there's any fallout for the GOP, I don't know and I certainly don't want my favoured Democratic Party to gain from it either

America needs to learn from the Terri Schiavo case and ensure it never happens again. States need to examine their custody laws in cases like this because one thing this has proved is that the spouse is not always best fitted to be the legal custodian. Parents, siblings and children  deserve rights too

Dave

[opebo]

Me too.  There is an ugly sickness on the left, when they can so passionately want this woman dead, but at the same time fight against execution of brutal murderers.

Nobody on the left gave a damn whether this woman lived or died.  We cared about two things - 1) that the rule of law be preserved, and 2) that her wishes be carried out.

It was the Right that passionately wanted ham-handed State interference in the normal, private, legal course of things.

[Citizen James]

Meanwhile, few people mourn the child who died in Texas a week or so ago.  Despite the pleas  of her parents, she was disconnected from life support because of their inability to pay.  An of course, nobody would dare critisize the governor who signed the law allowing such back in 1999.  (who was Governor of Texas in 1999?  Anyone smell a bit of irony here?)

Years ago, Senator Delay faced a similar quandry with his dying father.  He chose to let his dad die with dignity.  A tough choice for anyone, so I don't fault him for it.  Somewhat hypocritical for him to scream about someone else making a similar choice though.

Of course, none of this matters to Bush supporters.  It's not about Terry at all.  It's about worshiping their new god and savior, George Bush, and backing all he deems holy.

[Akno21]

In other Pat Buchanan news



KALAMAZOO, Michigan (AP) -- Commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan cut short an appearance after an opponent of his conservative views doused him with salad dressing.

"Stop the bigotry!" the demonstrator shouted as he hurled the liquid Thursday night during the program at Western Michigan University. The incident came just two days after another noted conservative, William Kristol, was struck by a pie during an appearance at a college in Indiana.

After he was hit, Buchanan cut short his question-and-answer session with the audience, saying, "Thank you all for coming, but I'm going to have to get my hair washed."

The demonstrator, identified by authorities as a 24-year-old student at Kalamazoo Valley Community College, was arrested and faces a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace. He was released on a $100 cash bond, pending his April 14 arraignment.

"He could have faced a felony assault charge, but Pat Buchanan decided to not press that charge," university spokesman Matt Kurz said.

Buchanan's visit had evoked controversy on campus because it fell on the birthday of the late Mexican-American labor leader Cesar Chavez. Buchanan favors tighter controls on immigration.

Kristol, editor of the influential conservative magazine The Weekly Standard and former chief of staff to Vice President Quayle, was splattered by a student during a speech Tuesday at Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana.

Members of the audience at the Quaker college jeered the student, then applauded as Kristol wiped the pie from his face and said, "Just let me finish this point." Kristol then completed his speech and took questions from the audience.

The student, who was not immediately identified, was suspended and could face expulsion following a disciplinary review, Earlham Provost Len Clark said Wednesday.

Clark also issued a written apology complimenting Kristol for his "graciousness."

[The Duke]

Dazzleman,

The sad thing is, so many Republicans were on the side of the kill Terri stuff.  Did you ever think you'd see the day that that Jesse Jackson, Lanny Davis, and Ralph Nader were on the side of life, while Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and William Rehnquist were against it?  No normal person could be a rabidly pro states rights as Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist (not even the poster whose NAME is Statesrights).  We need to rethink entirely the kind of people we're putting on the bench.

[Snowe08]

Did you ever think you'd see the day that that Jesse Jackson, Lanny Davis, and Ralph Nader were on the side of life, while Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and William Rehnquist were against it?

Well - yes, we do. We need more jurists like Scalia and Thomas.

If a law is wrong, if it is no longer what society wants or agrees with, if a right is desired yet absent, then it is the job of congress to rescind the unjust law, to write a new law, to pass a Constitutional amendment. It is NOT the job of the courts to bend the Constitution, to hallucinate new rights into the document where they never existed previously. The job of a Justice is to determine what is LEGAL, not what is MORAL. I mortally reject the notion - advocated by Living Constitutionalists like Steven Breyer, and now evidently Tom DeLay - the Supreme Court should be allowed to be granted the role of the nation's moral arbiter.


Let me discuss this in the light of an important recent case, in which the majority of the Supreme Court once again showed its utter contempt for legitimate Constitutional jurisprudence.

Executing a minor is a travesty of justice, it is - in virtually every way and instance whicih I can imagine - utterly immoral, and it should be illegal, in my opinion. And no matter what I think, or what Justice Kennedy thought in writing Roper v. Simmons - easily the worst judgement offered by the court in recent memory - it is NOT unconstitutional. If I believe that executing a minor is a travesty of justice, I should lobby Congress to pass a law. THAT is how these matters should be decided: by the legislature.

And yet, now, some Conservatives - Conservatives who just last month argued loudly against the flagrant judicial activism of Roper, something which I joined them in, argue that the Judges involved in the various procedings of Ex parte T. Schaivo v. M. Schaivo should have made a determination of what was MORAL not what was LEGAL.


I like Pat Buchanan a lot, I subscribe to his magazine, I think he's made some very insightfull comments over the years, I think he's been a truly brave man to say some of the things he's said - but I think his argument quoted above is utterly assinine. I join with Pat in deploring that it came to this, and in concluding that this was an example of bad, unjust and immoral law - but the palliative for bad law is legislative action, not judicial activism.

[Jake]

In other Pat Buchanan news

KALAMAZOO, Michigan (AP) -- Commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan cut short an appearance after an opponent of his conservative views doused him with salad dressing.

"Stop the bigotry!" the demonstrator shouted as he hurled the liquid Thursday night during the program at Western Michigan University. The incident came just two days after another noted conservative, William Kristol, was struck by a pie during an appearance at a college in Indiana.

After he was hit, Buchanan cut short his question-and-answer session with the audience, saying, "Thank you all for coming, but I'm going to have to get my hair washed."

The demonstrator, identified by authorities as a 24-year-old student at Kalamazoo Valley Community College, was arrested and faces a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace. He was released on a $100 cash bond, pending his April 14 arraignment.

"He could have faced a felony assault charge, but Pat Buchanan decided to not press that charge," university spokesman Matt Kurz said.

Buchanan's visit had evoked controversy on campus because it fell on the birthday of the late Mexican-American labor leader Cesar Chavez. Buchanan favors tighter controls on immigration.

Kristol, editor of the influential conservative magazine The Weekly Standard and former chief of staff to Vice President Quayle, was splattered by a student during a speech Tuesday at Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana.

Members of the audience at the Quaker college jeered the student, then applauded as Kristol wiped the pie from his face and said, "Just let me finish this point." Kristol then completed his speech and took questions from the audience.

The student, who was not immediately identified, was suspended and could face expulsion following a disciplinary review, Earlham Provost Len Clark said Wednesday.

Clark also issued a written apology complimenting Kristol for his "graciousness."

Mature rad-libs

[Rob]

Great points, Snowe08. It is absolutely hypocritical for the GOP to rage against judicial activism one month and then try to ram it down the country's throat the next. That is not a conservative position.

[The Duke]

Snowe08,

The last thing we need is another Scalia.

The Roper ruling was based on, as Justice Kennedy termed it, "evolving standards of decency".  In other words, he ruled that our rights are subject to public opinion polls.  That is judicial activism.

It is NOT judicial activism however to accept that there are substantive components to the due process clause, as the Federal Courts should have done in this case, and been more proactive in defending Terri Schiavo.

Florida's legislature DID write a new law.  The courts struck it down.  More activism.  News falsh to the naive: You can't rewrite the law if the courts always strikes down your new law.

[Snowe08]

Snowe08,

"Simon" will do fine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree entirely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Federal courts ruled that T. Schaivo's 14th amendment rights to due process had been satisfied. In fact, if I remember correctly, every level of the Federal court system, up to and including the Supreme Court, had already dismissed any suggestion that her 14th Amendment rights had been violated prior to congressional action, only to repeat the same action subsequently.

On the second point: I'm not sure how you're defining proactive here (or rather, what you're saying the courts should do). In my opinion, when a case is brought before it, the court should rule on what the law says about a given case at the moment at which the case was brought before it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not necessarily, no. I haven't read the Florida statute, nor the Florida State Constitution, nor the ruling of the Supreme Court which struck down the former (I couldn't even tell you its citation), but I presume that the FSC struck the law down for being unconstitutional. Holding a law to be unconstitutional is not, in and of itself, judicial activism - so I'd have to refer to the FSC judgment, which I'd be happy to do, if I could find it.

[The Duke]

Due process is not only procedural. There is a substantiuve component to the due process clause as well.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

. This year his condition deteriorated and he died on 19th March gone and, to be honest,

Sorry to hear that, Dave

[J. J.]

Florida's legislature DID write a new law.  The courts struck it down.  More activism.

Not necessarily, no. I haven't read the Florida statute, nor the Florida State Constitution, nor the ruling of the Supreme Court which struck down the former (I couldn't even tell you its citation), but I presume that the FSC struck the law down for being unconstitutional. Holding a law to be unconstitutional is not, in and of itself, judicial activism - so I'd have to refer to the FSC judgment, which I'd be happy to do, if I could find it.

Actually, I did read the FL Supreme Court ruling.  It was struck down on this ground:

That the act, "Terri's Law," violated the FL Consitution's separation of powers clause.  The clause gave the Governor the power to demand the appoint a special guardian (his authority to do so expire 15 days after the act was adopted).

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/HouseBill35-E.pdf

The court held, correctly, that giving the Governor this authority, violated the separation of powers.   

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/04/04-925/Filed_09-23-2004_Opinion.pdf#xml=http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/SCRIPTS/texis.exe/Webinator/search/xml.txt?query=Schiavo+v.+Bush&pr=SupremeCourt&prox=page&rorder=500&rprox=500&rdfreq=500&rwfreq=500&rlead=500&sufs=0&order=r&cq=&id=421f40a027

This was nother new, as the opinion cites case from 1968, and including cases from the 80's and 90's.  In short the court found that the legislature couldn't remove its own duty to act through statute, or delegate it to the Governor.

There were due process issues, that Mrs. Schiavo's right to privacy was violated by the law, found by the lower court.  The State Supreme Court chose to affirm or deny that ground.