It’s Very Sad To See

The abuse and bile being spewed about the net with regard to Terri Sciavo is amazing, and disgusting. The crap that Insta has had to put up with is simply vile. Sure, some guys clearly think it adds a few sorely needed inches to their wienies to attack him, and I guess they’re feeling impotent because Chimpbushhitler has no more elections to lose, but can people grow the heck up please? Yeah, I think it is unconscionable that she was taken off the feeding tube and effectively murdered. But I also think that it was wrong to have a special session of Congress to pass a ‘law’ that pertains to one person. And I think Jeb made the right decision in not sending in marshalls to ‘rescue’ her. There’s enough in here to piss off everyone from multiple angles.
The whole situation sucked from top to bottom, and screaming epithets and wishing ill on others shines a brighter light on your own shortcomings than it does on your pearls of wisdom.

37 Responses to “It’s Very Sad To See”

  1. Dave J says:

    “But I also think that it was wrong to have a special session of Congress to pass a ‘law’ that pertains to one person.”
    It bothers me too, but I feel it’s worth pointing out that legislatures, Congress included, do pass special acts pertaining to only one party with some regularity: what I’m saying is that, while not exactly commonplace, this isn’t something unheard-of. Though, of course, you’d never know that based on the coverage. Oh, and this is hairsplitting, but “special session” is a legislative term of art with a very specific meaning: since Congress is effectively ALWAYS in session, it’s meaningless in this context.
    “And I think Jeb made the right decision in not sending in marshalls to ‘rescue’ her.”
    Well, yes and no. The Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) routinely takes children and disabled adults into temporary custody on allegations of abuse or neglect. This is an administrative process, an exceutive function subject to judicial review AFTER THE FACT. If they had acted before this became a national media circus, I think the situation might’ve been very different. As it was, waiting until it had, Jeb then stupidly went on bended knee to beg for Judge Greer’s permission, and what he got instead was a slap in the face: a mandate from the court to every sheriff in the state to stop DCF, by force if necessary. Why he did that is completely beyond me, except if it was purely for political cover, in which case it was an act of monumental cowardice on his part.

  2. Mr. Bingley says:

    Thanks for the thoughtful and reasoned comments dave. I wonder really if it was on their radar long enough for them to go that DCF route that you mentioned. Sure, this case has been simmering in Fl for awhile, but it reaslly exploded nationally over the course of one weekend. Aren’t most Florida judges elected? I wonder how this will play the next time around?

  3. Dave J says:

    “I wonder really if it was on their radar long enough for them to go that DCF route that you mentioned.”
    Well, my point was that it would’ve been easier for DCF to act BEFORE it was on the national radar, even before it became a major statewide media story a year or so ago.
    As for elected judges, yes, Florida trial judges are elected (appellate judges are appointed). Greer was reelected unopposed in 2004; I’d guess he’ll probably draw opposition in his next race, but 2010 is a ways off, more than an eternity politically.

  4. Mr. Bingley says:

    Well, I guess it could have been cowardice. But I suppose it also could have been respect for the law, and to give the Florida Judiciary one more oppurtunity to expose themselves.

  5. Mr. Bingley says:

    Well, the advantage of hindsight I reckon is that it’s easy to declare when it would have been easiest to do things. From the bureauocratic standpoint, of course, it was easiest to do nothing from the get go, and go figure, that’s the route they chose.

  6. Dave J says:

    I don’t see abdicating your own statutory responsibilities by passing the buck to the courts as respect for the law. More likely the latter:
    “…to give the Florida Judiciary one more oppurtunity to expose themselves.”
    Figuratively speaking, of course. We did at least eventually manage to get rid of Greer’s Pinellas County colleague Charles Cope for doing that (and more) in the literal sense.

  7. Mr. Bingley says:

    Perhaps he’s leery of having another Bush family member involved in an ugly battle with the Florida courts; I’m sure it would cause headlines about refighting 2000, etc.

  8. John says:

    “Department of Children and Families (DCF) routinely takes children and disabled adults into temporary custody on allegations of abuse or neglect. This is an administrative process, an exceutive function subject to judicial review AFTER THE FACT.”
    Doesn’t this bother you Dave J? Just an allegation by some nut can potentially cause the state to take your kids out of your custody. I would like to remove the administrative powers of the DCF entirely in every state, or at least require a minimum of proof before removal. I have a colleage whose 5 year old son went outside into a neighbor’s yard without permission while she was taking a nap. The neighbor is nearly senile old coot, and she called DCF, who removed the kid for 6 hours. I can’t say what I’d do if someone took my kid by (legally sanctioned)force.

  9. Mr. Bingley says:

    Yeah, John, the whole “presumption of innocence” bit goes right out the window when the cry of “Save The Children!” is raised by some agency. You are presumed guilty based on an annonymous tip.

  10. Crusader says:

    Yeah, this whole thing has just amazed me. Being a proud Fundie/member of the the Religious Right, I have to just shake my head reading some of the crap that has been written about this. I don’t agree with what Congress did, but I also don’t see that it signals the end of the Republic the way that some people have been frothing at the mouth. And I am tired of this being blamed on us nasties filthies pro-life Christians. Get a friggin grip folks. I attend one of the largest (also a former deacon) and most conservative churches in the SBC, and I have yet to meet one person who agrees with what Congress/Bush did. Personally, I think both sides of this had a few screws loose, but that is true of most issues. I am sick of the ‘Religious Right’ being the new bogeyman of the ‘moderate Republicans’. They cry like stuck pigs about the RINO remarks, but don’t seem to mind slinging around the Fundie/Religious Right crapola. Pot, meet Kettle? Just makes me ask a big ole Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. Same with Bill at INDC and Glenn with the “Hill ’08” stuff. Grow up, as I voted against Bush 41 twice, and never looked back, so that hound don’t hunt guys. I do not like at all Ws track record on growing the Federal Gov’t, or on border control (or lack thereof), either. So lets work on common ground, and agree to disagree on some thing, knowing full well that both sides will at times lose on items that are important to each respective group, but lets keep the bile for the terrorists who are the real enemy at the gates.

  11. Dave J says:

    Yes, John, it does bother me, and on top of that DCF in Florida is notoriously incompetent. They probably should be required to show probable cause to a judge equivalent to what the police would need for a search warrant. I was just trying to illustrate what the normal situation would have been if they wasn’t a media circus: I’m not saying it would’ve been perfect by any means.
    Mr. B., guilt and innocence are criminal concepts. Moreover, the burden of proof does lie on DCF to show that they should retain custody.

  12. Mr. Bingley says:

    But they are allowed to steal your kid often on the basis of hearsay before they have to show why. At the very least it seems to me they should be required to present evidence to a judge first, much as in the manner of a search warrant.

  13. Mr. Bingley says:

    Crusader, in the spirit of common ground I present this, which is something we can all agree on.

  14. Crusader says:

    Firearms bring families together!

  15. Mr. Bingley says:

    Snipers just want to reach out and touch someone!

  16. Dave J says:

    I don’t claim to be an expert on this area of law, but there do appear to be multiple safeguards in place (I know that sounds like I’m making excuses: I’m not trying to, just to make as clear as I possibly can what the actual situation is). I don’t really want to go into every last detail, but FYI, if you’re interested, take a look a chapters 39 (children) and 415 (adults) of the Florida Statutes: (here) as well as chapter 65 of the Florida Administrative Code, which governs DCF, especially section 65C-10, specifically relating to protective investigations: here
    Hearsay isn’t specificaly excluded as far as I could see in skimming these things, but I’m not sure if you might have an overbroad understanding of what hearsay actually is: I don’t mean to sound flip or condescending, but most laypeople do. Hearsay is essentially when one person says that another person (the declarant) said X, in order to prove that X is true.

  17. Nightfly says:

    DCF sounds a bit like DYFS (Division of Youth and Family Services) up north here. They seize kids on the oddest of pretexts, but then every once in a while you get a story like this one that hit a year and a half ago.

  18. Crusader says:

    Dear God, their name was Jackson and all were boys. Real scary….

  19. Dave J says:

    “…up north here.”
    Nightfly, I’m not actually in Florida anymore, but north of you up here in Boston.

  20. Mr. Bingley says:

    Boston
    I’ll have to ask you to refrain from such language, Dave. This is a wholesome, family-orientated site we run here.

  21. Dave J says:

    If I said what I’m really feeling in response to that, you’d have to censor me MUCH more. :-p

  22. Mr. Bingley says:

    heh, yes, I was a little outnumbered in the bar that night…I’d best be careful.

  23. Mr. Bingley says:

    Hearsay isn’t specificaly excluded as far as I could see in skimming these things, but I’m not sure if you might have an overbroad understanding of what hearsay actually is: I don’t mean to sound flip or condescending, but most laypeople do. Hearsay is essentially when one person says that another person (the declarant) said X, in order to prove that X is true.

    Ah, as in “I just remembered: She told me she wanted me to pull the tube.” Gotcha 😉

  24. Dave J says:

    Right, although that particular example would probably be admissable: depending on whose evidence law you’re talking about, it be either defined as non-hearsay or as admissable hearsay under an exception (they love testing that on the bar exam because in practice it makes no difference which it is). It’s at least one of, if not all of, an admission, a declaration against interest, a dying declaration or an ecited utterance.

  25. A given that he is one of the least sympathetic individuals known to man, but he’s not exactly the heartless bastard he’s made out to be.
    When those didn’t work, Michael flew her out to California, where a doctor implanted platinum electrodes into her brain as part of an experimental procedure that ultimately failed. Back in Florida, Michael enlisted family members to record audiotapes of their voices, which he played for Terri on a Walkman. He was fastidious about Terri’s appearance, spraying her with Picasso perfume and outfitting her in stirrup pants and matching tops from The Limited. At one Florida nursing home, he was so demanding that administrators sought a restraining order against him. But Gloria Centonze, who worked there at the time (and by coincidence later married into the family of Michael’s future girlfriend), recalls a frequent comment among the nurses: “He may be a bastard, but if I was sick like that, I wish he was my husband.” To better care for Terri, Michael even enrolled in nursing school.
    And her parents in the court record, on the other hand…
    In the course of the trial, the Schindlers also made what a court-appointed guardian for Terri deemed “horrific” and “gruesome” comments—that the family would never remove Terri’s feeding tube even if she had asked them to, and that even if she developed gangrene, the family would amputate her limbs to keep her alive.
    Don’t do me any favors like that, please. And the whole falling out occurred over money. Should some one starve to death? No. Did he decide he heard that after three weeks of Terri’s PVS? No. Eight years. Eight years of doing everything humanly possible to bring her back and ease her suffering. But should one be handed over to be slowly chopped apart bit by bit (they’d already had to amputate her pinky toes) simply because they’re willing to make sure I’m ‘kept alive’? I want to know that Major Dad’s got the con. (Two thumbs up to the Bingster for his take on government intervention.) As long as the Florida law says I’m his bag of worms, I’m safe from that hideous end. Don’t do me any favors like that please.
    BUT regardless of your viewpoint, no one has the right to threaten anyone else or excoriate them for reasoned arguments regardless of their track with yours. And there is no excuse for the pictures of that hospice, with other families in horrible and sorrowful circumstances, being subjected to the vitriol and hate that raged around that parking lot. What in God’s name is is wrong with people when there has to be snipers on the roofs around a hospice??

  26. Mr. Bingley says:

    Yep. And get thee all to lawyers now folks and get things clearly written out. I’m just wondering where I’m going to find the Viking Longboat that NJSue demands that I set her alight in…

  27. You’d better check with the EPA for emmission standards before you light it off.

  28. Mr. Bingley says:

    You really think they’d notice if I sent this down the Navesink Fjord?

  29. I’ve already told Major Dad “it’s a box under the bed for you, pal.” Flaming ships, sheesh. Now he’s gonna want one.

  30. Mr. Bingley says:

    Yeah, well if you’d married a Danish Babe™ you’d have to go the flaming ship route too.

  31. Dave J says:

    Mmmmm…Scandinavian women. Mmmmm…Scandinavian women. <---jealousy

  32. NJ Sue says:

    All this talk about my funeral is making me nervous.

  33. RHJunior says:

    “A law for one person.”
    See, the only problem with that is…
    Everything that the courts did to Terri Schiavo,
    they now can do to you.
    It’s called “setting a precedent.” It means that what happened to Terri will effect the legal chances of every single person in similar dire straits from now on.
    Food for thought. Isn’t it.

  34. Dave J says:

    Yes and no, RHJunior. There’s a distinction between persuasive and controlling authority, and trial court rulings do not create precedents that are formally binding on anyone, even themselves.

  35. The Real JeffS says:

    Flaming ships, huh? Sounds cool! Especially if I can go to Valhalla, hunt all day, and then at night guzzle ale and cavort with beautiful Valkaries.

  36. Mr. Bingley says:

    And sing “Yo-Hoo-Toe-Hoe! all the time.

Image | WordPress Themes