Life
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (42) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It's not my intention to make this FDT day at RedState, but this is worthy of comment. -- Erick
It's an interesting study in contrast for which I know I'll get hate mail. But there are two first tier candidates this year running for President who have lost children. On the Democratic side, rarely does a news story or interview go by without John Edwards or a campaign surrogate mentioning the tragic death of his son, Wade. It humanizes the man you'd otherwise only think of as the guy who gets $400.00 haircuts while living in 20,000 square foot houses.
See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. In fact, according to Edwards, the death of his son is one reason he got into politics.
On the other side is Fred Thompson, who lost his daughter Elizabeth. You don't read as much about Elizabeth Thompson Panici's death, but it is one reason Thompson dropped out of politics in 2002. And it is not something he likes to talk about, but it is important to understand just how deeply it affected to understand just how committed to life he is. Read Jake Tapper's report here.
A lot of other candidates have hurled jabs Thompson's way for his failing to address the Schiavo issue, but reading this interview underscores just how much Thompson understands the personal side of the issue and just how disdainful he is of trying to turn these issues into political battles.
"Obviously, I had heard about the Schiavo case," Thompson said Monday afternoon after touring the Port of Tampa, when a local reporter asked him if he wanted to revisit his answer from September. "I had to face a situation like that on a personal level with my own daughter. I know this is bandied about as a political issue, and people want to make it such and talk about it in the public marketplace a lot. I am a little bit uncomfortable about that, because it's an intensely personal thing with me. These things need to be decided by the family."
It's things like this that make me a Thompson fan. He loathes to make the personal a political issue.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | You guys might want to spell check — Comments (14) »
Life 42 Comments (0 topical, 42 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Life magazine had been resurrected in order to say that Huckabee looks to be the GOP nominee.
because the only thing the MSM has been able to talk about is his "trophy" wife, pigs.
He is quite a man to not make this part of his campaign...the same cannot be said of others.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
I personally feel that the simple answer here is "yes." There was no excuse for Congress to stick itself where it doesn't belong. The courts had heard any number of arguments over this case, and had come out the way they did. There was no reason for Congress to trample on a state power (which these decisions are).
The Schiavo case was one of those times when I was pissed at Social Conservatives for letting their preferred result lead them down the very same course that liberals take every day - making government the instrument of "solving" the problem, instead of letting the local communities and persons involved take responsibility for the situation.
I like Fred - but that probably comes from the fact that I am a states' rights advocate, and a fan of the federal system the Founders established. Even when government might have a role in a given problem, it is rare (for me) to see that the proper government to respond resides in Washington, DC (unless of course the problem is occurring in the city of Washington itself). I feel like Fred speaks to that desire - to truly see the states become homes for innovation and experimentation.
This should have never gotten this far. It's a family/State matter. I feel this is just the first of many many things that got piled on the GOP that resulted in the 2006 defeats.
Fred taking the private road is fine by me. That's where these tragic things belong.
Those words above make social conservatives gnash their teeth.
The Republicans were right on Schiavo.
Bush has had a lot of easy rides in his life, but the media never liked to talk about what was obviously a hugely formative experience for him, the death of his young sister from leukemia when he was about 7 years old. That kind of thing leaves a mark that doesn't go away.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Good grief. Do you people even know why Congress stepped in to the Schiavo case?
I remember when conservatives used to stand for "limited government." Now we are willing to toss out that principle whenever it violates the sanctity of federalism.
Limited government means the actions of the government (including state governments) should be limited within their proper boundaries. Killing someone without due process of law is definitely outside the borders of the state's power. The state court refused to have Terri Shiavo tested to see if she was conscious before they decided to starve her to death. They couldn't even get away with that for a death row inmate.
Do you folks really think there should be no checks on the power of state government?
What has happened to the conservative movement? When did we put the "rights of states" ahead of the dignity of humans?
If the feds can trample the Constitution and take new powers when it suits us, it will also trample the Constitution and take new poewrs when it doesn't suit us.
What was once used to save lives will be used to end them.
The safeguards are in there for all of us.
If you don't like the rush to kill that Florida created, change the laws in Florida. Don't run to Washington because you can't win the battle where it belongs.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
So by your logic, the federal government should have never intervened on the questions of slavery or segregation since it "tramples the Constitution", right?
Are you saying that we should have let states--including Florida--decide those issues?
As I wrote this I noticed that it drifts off topic slightly. Ok, a great deal from the original subject of the thread, but hopefully everyone will be ok with that.
Well, that depends.
Is it good that we ended slavery in the US? Yes.
Should South Carolina been allowed to secede? Also, yes, according to the constitution.
Did the federal government overstep its power by declaring war on the Confederate states? Technically, no, since it is within the powers granted by the constitution to declare war.
Was the "Civil War" truly a civil war? No. It was a war between two sovereign nations, the United States and the Confederate States of America.
Was there a better way to go about ending slavery? And would it have resulted in a united country afterwards? Perhaps. It is possible that the economic strain put on the south by no longer having the massive manufacturing capabilities of the north would have resulted in the abolition of slavery and the rejoining of the Union. It is also possible that without the war slavery would have continued very strongly in the south. I'm probably not qualified to answer this one.
I guess in summary I'm saying that while it is good that there is no longer slavery in the US, its abolition was not accomplished in a way strictly in line with the constitution. Essentially, the north decided to impose the 13th amendment on the south by force of arms. What should have happened is that if the 13th amendment was ratified, those states which felt strongly enough about keeping slaves to give up membership in the Union be allowed to secede. Or if the 13th amendment failed to be ratified, the states should have continued to make their own decisions regarding the issue of slavery until a similar amendment was ratified. Then see above...
The constitution is the law of this land. Whether something is moral or not does not effect whether it is against the law. We should work within the law to change it, not break the law to change it. Except:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. ...
"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan
I'm with you one hundred percent. Unfortunately, I believe less than one percent of the nation probably shares our views.
One big reason slavery LED to the Civil War was that some activist federal judges got involved, and we were stuck with Dred Scott which imposed a national resolution of the issue upon the states.
The fact that something is evil does not compel us to throw out the Constitution. Lawlessness is in itself wrong, even if in the short term it is an attempt to do good.
No, in the long run if you want to actually fight the evil, matters like abortion and euthanasia are going to have to be fought on a state by state basis, politically persuading people to the side of life.
Unconstitutional federal mandates will only create strife and harden people's positions against you. It happened with Dred Scott which led to the founding of the Republican Party. It happened with Roe which led to the Reagan Democrats and the modern Republican coalition. And it would happen again if through the Congress or the Courts we imposed life on states controlled by the Party of Death.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
First you say this:
"Killing someone without due process of law is definitely outside the borders of the state's power"
Then you say this:
"The state court refused to have Terri Shiavo tested to see if she was conscious before they decided to starve her to death."
So the courts heard the arguments and made a decision - what do you that is due process of law. The federal government, and definitely the federal legislature, had no business involving themselves with any of it.
"Do you folks really think there should be no checks on the power of state government?"
Who said that? You have state and federal constitutions that put checks on the power of state gvoernment - and the state courts interpret the application of the state constitution and the federal courts that of the federal constiution.
Due process of law is not simply letting the courts make a decision. It is the principle that the government must respect all of a person's legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Shiavo was deprived of her legal rights, a situation that Congress stepped in to redress.
***You have state and federal constitutions that put checks on the power of state gvoernment***
So the state watches itself and has the ultimate authority. And you think this is a conservative ideal? Seriously, conservative have ceded too much power to government in the name of federalism.
The federal courts have ultiamte authority if the states violate the federal constitution. The state does have ultimate authority otherwise. In either case, the federal legislature should not have been involved - when the supreme court rejected the appeal on due process grounds then that was it, due process ahd been met.
***when the supreme court rejected the appeal on due process grounds then that was it, due process ahd been met.***
The Supreme Court never rejected the appeal on due process grounds because that was never presented. It was simply a bizarre technicality (one that the Supreme Court has refused to fix) that prevented the case from being heard. She was simply denied due process because the state judge chose to do so and no one could (or at least would) stop him.
What it came down to what the state court acting as an imperial arbiter over the woman's life. Both the state legislature and the executive branch tried to intervene but their is limited checks on the courts.
The judicial branch has overstepped its bounds ever since Marbury v Madison. They have given themselves their own power and made their own laws, and most people seem to have accepted them all without question. In the minds of most Americans, if a judge says it, it MUST be perfectly correct and legitimate. I assure you that if the court told people to jump, almost all would ask how high. It would be refreshing to see an executive and enforcement branch defy the federal judiciary when they overstep their bounds.
At least some states allow for the direct election of judges and/or limited terms, so there is some check in those places. I don't know if Florida is one of those states, but my guess would be that it is not.
I for one have little respect for our federal judiciary, and I would have more faith and trust in Congress to handle the tasks normally given to the judiciary.
During his speech at the Values Voter summit, Mike Huckabee said:
"And any federal judge who uses some international law as a precedent to make a court decision ought to be impeached."
He almost won me over on that alone. ; )
Why do you say that? The Schneider filed an emergency petition to be heard arguing that their daughter's religious freedom and due process had been violated and the supreme court denied cert without comment - so what technicality are you speaking of? They couldn't even get enough justices to agree to hear the case, which is usually a good indication that they would not have overturned the state courts decisions.
It is the principle that the government must respect all of a person's legal rights
And there you have indicated the problem. The judiciary gets to craft its own definition of who or what is a "person."
She was tested and tested and tested again early on after her trauma. It was her parents who didn't want to acknowledge those results and fought them with their own specialists. But as is the law her husband made the decision. As the postmortem showed she was gone, her cerebrum had atrophied. If she had no will then her husband, by their marriage, is her proxy.
First, she had not been tested in 10 years. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)—which have only become available since Terri’s original diagnosis was made—could have determined if she was in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) or in a minimally conscious state (MCS). Neurologists were unsure of what state she was in, which is why the court should have ordered the test be done.
Second, her "husband" had abandoned Terri and was shacked with another woman (a woman that he had children with while Terri was in the hospital). In an earlier age, Michael Shiavo would have been considered a husband who had abandoned his wife and was living with a commmon law wife, thereby negating his standing as guardian. The ridiculous no-fault divorce laws in Florida are as much to blame as anything. How can you allow a man with a clear conflict of interest to decide a woman's fate?
Third, it is true that her cerbrum had atrophied. That tends to happen when you are allowed to dehydrate during the dying process. But even with an atropied cerebrum she may have still been in an MCS. Tests should have been done to make that determination.
But the cerebrum does NOT atrophy to the point of non existence
due to dehydration. Second not being in his shoes, I won't disregard his standing with her because, believing her to be brain dead, he chose to find comfort and support. If his decision to allow her to pass hadn't been fought by her parents
than the length of time that passed wouldn't have made the common law situation relevant. And finally she married him and
the choice is legally his. Also, though people who wanted to keep her body alive DON'T acknowledge it, her statement that she didn't want to live like that WAS witnessed by someone OTHER than her husband. I won't even speak of the hypocrisy some show of wanting the court to legislate from the bench in THIS case but not others. And let me also say I live in Florida and I know quite a few people who will disagree with you about our no-fault divorce laws.
Joe Carter writes "Neurologists were unsure of what state she was in, which is why the court should have ordered the test be done."
No, the neurologists were sure.
Only certain doctors were allowed to examine her. Others wanted or offered to do so and were refused by her husband and the court.
I like Fred (though I'm in complete agreement with your letter to him) but sometimes it seems that he derived his views on conservatism by randomly picking out terms from the Conservative's Dictionary, and then using them in place of principles.
I know I'm probably in the minority but I think we may need to recalibrate our views on federalism to fit with modern government. The state government of California is larger than the federal government was at the time of the Founders. I don't think they could have ever imagined the states gaining such uncheckable power.
I realize, of course, that giving the feds any extra oversight could be dangerous. But what is more dangerous than state government being allowed to kill its own citizens? I think that when the situation involves the taking of life then we may can make some exceptions about who should get a say in the matter.
***Have I told you about my Ron Paul t-shirt?***
You gotta be careful about making fun of Ron Paul. When he gets in power he may add a constitutional amendment banning RedState.
And with Erick when he says that it's good to see you here. I haven't seen you since Justice Sunday II, if memory serves (you were there, right?)
But furthermore, these days federalism is just used as a handy cudgel to beat down something someone supports in a national election. A lot of the same people crying "federalism" in the context of Schiavo have been surprisingly quiet about, say, BMW v. Gore and its progeny.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
Hey Leon,
Good to hear from you again. Yeah, I haven't seen you since JSII. At the time I never would have suspected that I would end up working for FRC.
By the way, who are you throwing your support behind now that Brownback is out? Huckabee?
And I'm kind of leaning Fred right now. I dunno, Huckabee's just not a consensus guy, and it's very important to me that Rudy does not get the nomination.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
***...and it's very important to me that Rudy does not get the nomination.***
I agree. Oddly enough, that's the reason why I'm considering dropping my support for FDT (I think he'll drop out of the race by Feb.) and getting behind Huckabee. I think the fiscal conservatives (esp. the Club for Growth) are overstating the case against him. He's not perfect but he's looking better, especially on one of the most important issues: electability.
While I still think he's a long shot, I think he has a better chance against Hillary than Giuliani, Thompson, or Romney.
Ironically, while I think that Huckabee has a better chance against Hillary in the general election (he is more charismatic, he could appeal to moderates, etc.) than the others, I think it would be tough for him to make it through the primaries. He's tagged as "unelectable" so no one will vote for him.
Yet for some reason Giuliani is considered "electable" even though in head-to-head match ups he consistently gets trounced by Hillary (at least according to the Rasmussen polls). What a strange election this is going to be...
I don't think it is that surprising though. I think it makes sense that he'd have the toughest fight in the primaries. Indeed, there are many candidates who find their toughest battle in the primaries, for obvious reasons which I am sure you are familiar with already.
I think Huckabee will have a very hard time in the primaries indeed. More so, I believe, than would Fred or even McCain. He still has time to change minds obviously, but he's got to do something to do so.
absentee
and that is what happened in this case.
We may not like the outcome, but the outcome did follow the law (up until the point that the legislatures and congress got involved).
EO is one of my faves. Thanks for your comments here!
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
From the yahoo article covering the same issue with Thompson:
He added: "It should be decided by families. The federal government and the state government, too — except for the court system — ought to stay out of it, as far as I'm concerned."
I am a very strong so-con, but this was my point of view all along in the Schaivo case. The law states that the relatives make these decisions and they are gut wrenching. It is not a place for the government to get involved.
Let's also keep in mind that in the end, Terry Schaivo's brain was found to have shrunk considerably and the claims that people were making were just wrong.
On a side note, I am not surprised that this was Fred's take as it fits his Federalist point of view.
My view is that Congress and/or legislatures should not involve themselves in a single specific case like this. Their role is to devise policies and laws to be generally and/or uniformly applied. Similarly, courts should not involve themselves in making policies to be generally and/or uniformly applied. However, I think it would be perfectly okay for Congress or a state to modify, repeal, or add to the applicable laws in this case, and THAT is how people should have sought relief at the time of this incident.
People who say that the government should stay out of situations like the Schiavo situation are being naive and simplistic. In the Schiavo situation, the parents wanted one thing, and the husband wanted another thing. In such a situation, the government must intervene. And that's what the government finally did in the Schiavo situation; it intervened to forcibly prevent the parents from taking custody of their daughter.
People may disagree about whether the government should have instead taken the side of the husband. But no one who actually uses their brain to think about that Schiavo situation can seriously believe that the government should have taken neither side.
Just think what would have happened if the government had stayed out of the situation. Violence surely would have ensued, as the parents attempted to grab their daughter to keep her alive, and the husband physically tried to stop them. Plus mob violence, as the pro-parent forces sought to defeat the pro-husband forces.
It is absolutely ludicrous to to say that the government should stay out of a situation like that. The real question is which side the government should take.
I totally agree, I think with someone like Thompson in the house, everyone would have left the Schiavo family out of the political spotlight.
Somethings are too personal for government intervention.