Monday, March 21, 2005

The Vote: 203-58

From Fox , - Politics - President Bush Signs Schiavo Legislation The House of Representatives (search) voted 203-58 in favor of the bill shortly after midnight; the Senate unanimously passed it on Sunday afternoon.

"In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life," Bush said in a statement after signing the bill. (snip)

The House opened debate on the bill at 9 p.m. EST on Sunday and debated the measure past midnight. (snip)

"As millions of Americans observe the beginning of Holy Week this Palm Sunday we are reminded that every life has purpose and none is without meaning," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., a leader in crafting the bill.

But Rep. Jim Davis (search), D-Fla., said the congressional action was "a clear threat to our democracy." Congress, he said, was ignoring the constitutional separation of power and "is on the verge of telling states, courts, judges and juries that their opinions, deliberations and decisions do not matter." (snip)

"The bill guarantees a process to help Terri but does not guarantee a particular outcome. Once a new case is filed, a federal judge can issue a stay at any time," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "The judge has discretion of that particular decision; however, I would expect that a federal judge would grant a stay under these circumstances because Terri would need to live in order for the court to consider the case." (snip)

Congress is stepping into a family matter, added Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (search), D-Fla., who argued that the state court determined that Schiavo had made known her wish not to be kept alive in this condition. "It is not the Congress' place to say 'yes' or 'no,'" about Schiavo's fate, she said.

Read the whole thing at Fox. This article contained only the above two arguements in the negative regarding this vote. I've been looking for such counterarguements. Rep Davis has it exactly backwards. The "clear threat to Democracy" is courts in any jurisdiction deciding that someone must die because of convenience. The Congress is telling, in this case a single judge in the state of Florida, and the state itself, that their decision to impose a death sentence on someone who was clearly not dying, is reprehensible. How clear does that need to be? And the Congress is stepping into a family matter sounds like the cry we might hear out of North Korea about internal matters.The court did not" determine that Schiavo had made her wish not to be kept alive in this condition". The court determined, with no written documentation from the person central to this issue, that her husband's claim was sufficient for the death sentence. If it is "not the Congress place to say yes or no", the body which is supposed to represent the People, whose place is it? This is a disreputable arguement of convenience. The lawyer bloggers, much better armed about the law that I can argue out those fine points, but I would rather be somewhat incorrect about the law and alive, than dehydrating to death as the ink dries on a legal document, excuted with pristine correctness.

More: Wizbang has some egregious quotes from a few Dems. Pictures too.
Names are being recorded in the Book of Life. Did you say yay or nay?

No comments: