Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Terri Schiavo...reframing the debate

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 02:27 AM
Original message
Terri Schiavo...reframing the debate
Edited on Sat Mar-26-05 02:28 AM by Behind the Aegis
I can understand that emotions are running high concerning this case. However, why has it become a wedge issue for us? Maybe that is just my opinion, but I have seen some really disturbing things being bantered about here. And, whereas, it may be wrong to politicize this issue, what is done is done. I remember early on, that this case was being discussed as "the right steeping in 'it'." So, why has it turned into 'it' for us? So, let's turn this back into an issue of governmental concern, instead of "I would do this or that." We can continue to argue back and forth about her condition, can she recover, who is "morally" right, etc, until the earth ceases to exist, or we can look at this a folly on the part of the right-wing Rethugs. I know it may sound cold, but we have become our own worst enemies on this situation.

These are facts, as I see them. Feel free to comment or expound upon them.

FACT: This situation is a tragedy. We all "know" how (or feel we "know" how) we would handle it if we were in the same situation.

FACT: Michael is still legally married to Terri. Therefore, by default, HE and HE alone, makes the decisions concerning his wife's treatment, or lack thereof.

FACT: Micheal has never been charged or convicted of spousal abuse. Therefore, any claims that he should be removed as her legal guardian are moot.

FACT: They are still married. Terri is not "his chattel" anymore, than he is hers.

FACT: Several judges, no dissenters, have ruled IN FAVOR of Micheal taking any action he feels were the wishes of his wife.

Using these facts, we can then say:

FACT: Rethugs ARE NOT honoring the "sanctity of marriage" because of their interference with a legally recognized marriage.

FACT: They do not respect the 'checks and balances' of the United States government as provided in our Constitution. They demonstrated this 'contempt' by quickly passing UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws in order to override the Judicial branch of the state government.

FACT: They DO NOT respect STATE'S RIGHTS as shown by the GROSS display of the national Congress and the "President." Their 'late night, last minute" sessions were nothing but an attempt to circumvent the rights' of the State of Florida and its Judicial branch.

Therefore, I feel, that NO democrat should state one way or the other about the actual situation, should the tube be removed or not. Democrats should only comment on how the concept of states' rights, checks and balances, and the "sanctity of marriage" are under attack from the Rethug party. They should say it often, repeatedly, and loud! They should not allow for the conversation to stray to ANY other discussion.

This tragedy should not be used for political exploit...BUT the actions taken by the Rethug Party should be!

What says you?

ON EDIT: made a boo-boo with the bold feature!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelvetMonkeyWrench Donating Member (122 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 02:39 AM
Response to Original message
1. It might be a bad idea...
...to harp on unconstitutionality and states rights right away.

Democrats in general have never had a whole lot of concern for states rights in the past and that just seems an unnatural piece of ground to stake out right now until you're SURE you can defend it successfully in the historical record.

I'm not sure how an inventory on democrat sponsored past legislation that was subsequently overturned would turn out. I know FDR got sliced and diced quite badly on a lot of the New Deal stuff, and Clinton tanked on some high profile laws as well (Gun Free School Zone Act is one I remember).

IOW - we should not complain UNTIL we are sure we're not standing on quicksand.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Democrats have been *the* major supporters of states-rights ever since
Edited on Sat Mar-26-05 02:56 AM by w4rma
before FDR. Republicans have always been the ones to trample on state-rights.

With the sole exception of states-rights to support racism and that was a bipartisan trampling with Dixiecrats on the defensive (but, it was probably a good thing to do, anyway).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. More accurately, it was descendants of the Federalists who weakened states
The Federalists have won most of the battles in the struggle between federal power and state power, and it was greatly aided by the fact that those who invoked states' rights were the racists who were trying to justify such an atrocity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. The GOP-supporting Federalist Society purports to follow the Federalists.
http://www.fed-soc.org /

That makes it easy to tell which Party is opposed to division of power among the states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelvetMonkeyWrench Donating Member (122 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. Yea, but most people alive today weren't alive then.
...and will rightfully ask "what have you done for me lately?"

This is where democrats run into big PR problems - a rehash of some of the New Deal's unconstitutionality "greatest hits" is NOT FLATTERING to democrats, not in the least. Some of that stuff that was foisted of on farms was really odious and quite indefensible to modern sensibilities.

You can argue the modern era if you want, I wouldn't even try without doing a month or two worth of detailed congressional record research.

Don't forget, Clinton moaned about ditching the hated 55mph limit. That's a high profile one that's fresh enough for a lot of people to remember.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:33 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Social Security is unConstitutional? Wow, you must have a severely edited
version of the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pachamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:37 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Absolutely should the Dems/Progressives/Libertarians/Greens/Republicans be
Edited on Sat Mar-26-05 03:39 AM by Pachamama
talking about the trampling of State Rights here and attempts to circumvent Constitutions and the Judicial Branchs role in checks and balances and its being circumvented! Why should anyone be silent about this?

I grew up Republican....My father who will be buried in a "Red lined Casket" has got GOP flowing through his blood. Worked for 8 years for the Reagan Administration and 4 for Poppy....has never voted anything but Republican in his life and he taught me about the importance of the following: Keeping Gov't small, keeping Gov't out of personal life, Right of Privacy, Keeping Federal Gov't out of state rights, Checks and Balances of Gov't (ie. Constitutions Good!), Fiscal conservatism, Separation of Church and State, etc.

My Dad is OUTRAGED at the Republicans and the Bush's! He thinks what has been done here is UN-AMERICAN in both the meddling of the Bush Brothers, Congress etc. and the politicians in involving themselves in a personal family decision and circumventing court decisions and the constitution of both the US and the state of Florida and the Judicial Branches of both the State and Federal Branches.

This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue....this is an AMERICAN issue....I'm tired of the divisive tactics and arguments of the Neo-con pieces of shit instigating this bullshit on our country. I am an AMERICAN Dammit and this attack and assault on our VALUES and CONSTITUTION and LAWS is pissing me off! (as well as a lot of other Americans who are christians, muslims, buddhists, jews, hindu, sikh, atheist, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Progressive, Independent etc.....

This is an AMERICAN issue and AMERICANS are pissed at President Bush, the Congress, the Senate and Governor Jeb Bush and all the right wing nuts and media who are acting like the majority when they are maybe 15% of this country at the most!

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 02:51 AM
Response to Original message
4. Just one note: Michael has the authority because he first petitioned
the court to determine Terri's wishes.

The COURT acting as Terri's guardian reviewed evidence and determined she would not want to be kept alive on life support.

Michael is her appointed guardian and so is carrying it out - but he left the decision in the hands of the court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldcoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 02:52 AM
Response to Original message
5. Some additional facts
Constitutional and Government Issues: It is very dangerous for our democracy to have two branches of the government ignore the third branch.

We have a population of 250 million people so it is a bad idea to pass a law benefiting one person.


Violence: It is extremely dangerous for a democracy to have private individuals to attempt to intimidate protesters by threatening them with violence.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. good facts!
Seems the real issue is missing the forest for the trees. I just wonder how many more people are in a similar situation and how they feel that their loved one doesn't "deserve" the attention this case has received.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 02:56 AM
Response to Original message
7. I don't think anything needs to be reframed
Edited on Sat Mar-26-05 02:56 AM by high density
Most Americans already disagree with this stuff that's going on regarding Schiavo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:09 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. True
There is much disagreement about how this is being handled. HOWEVER, the focus is on whether she should have a feeding tube or not. That, to me, is NOT the real issue. We need to keep pressing for the REAL issues. When asked for comment, I would reply: "This is a tragedy. My feelings extend to both the husband and parents in their difficult time. This is a highly personal issue, and the Governor (et al), should not be involved." (That is how I would respond if I were asked in a public forum.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DisneyVixen Donating Member (23 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
13. Debate? I don't think those people know how to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I so agree!
But, that doesn't mean we should falter. We need to stick to message and stop wandering off on to a path that they create for us!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Oct 23rd 2017, 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC