March 22, 2005--My Rants, My Info--Terry Schiavo and other Miscarriages of Justice.
Today I am super pissed off!
I don't have much else I can do when I see a horrible miscarriage of justice, except rant through what I write on my blog. I am embarrassed when I see that kind of thing happen, especially in my country. But there are two cases of which I am not only angry, I am appalled.
First, I read in Law.com's newsletter about the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales
, whose arguments were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday. While they have not actually ruled on the case, and won't for about another three months, most of the justices actually showed their callousness. In Castle Rock, the Court seems to be likely to hold that a single mother cannot sue the police department of they city where she lives, when they failed to enforce a protective order against her ex-husband. Here's the kicker: because the police refused to come arrest her ex- after the protective order was granted by a divorce judge to shield the woman and her children from the father/ex-, and as a result, the ex- kidnapped and murdered her children. The Supreme Court justices actually seem like they are going to say that the police have no obligation to enforce the order? From a judge? I pose the question: where were you guys when they taught you law at law school?
But that case, as bad as it is, does not compare with the horrible ruling by U.S. District Judge James D. Whittemore in Tampa, Florida, followed by its 2-1 affirmance by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia. It has to go down as one of the 2-3 worst court decisions in American history. Terri Schiavo has been given, in effect, a death sentence. I'll load the text of the decision later, but I got the synopsis and analysis of the case from Andrew McCarthy, a top legal analyst with National Review Online. In it Mr. McCarthy gives the major elements of the text of the Act of Congress passed early Monday morning specifically to save Terri from starvation death by the removal of her feeding tube at the local hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida. In the Act of Congress, the federal judge who would get the case was ORDERED to conduct a review de novo of whether she is getting her right to life, recognized by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, violated by the local Florida state judge, George Greer's, decision to have her feeding tube removed. Back when they taught us law at law school, we were taught that when a legislature, which has direct oversight over the judge in question, clearly orders you to hold a hearing de novo, that you have to grant the injunction, and of course, keep any parties, witnesses, and evidence safe and secure. That was totally ignored by U.S. Judge Whittemore. So, I did a Google search, found the district court website for Judge Whittemore, and sent an e-mail to them for their complete miscarriage of justice (Now the 11th Circuit panel, by a 2-1 decision, has compounded this outrage). Below is the text of the e-mail (in three parts), which I sent him.
Judge Whittemore,
I am an attorney with licenses in about five different jurisdictions, living in San Diego, so I know a little something about the law myself. I join my voice with those who are absolutely appalled at your decision today. I have read the statute that gave the Schindler family the right to have de novo review of this case, and the incredibly tortured reasoning that you employed. As Andrew McCarthy in 'National Review Online' stated quite adroitly, you chose to do nothing more than use the interpretation that all the statute and the 14th Amendment required you to do is inquire whether the procedural structure of the state of Florida was sufficiently fashioned by the Legislature to be capable of upholding Ms. Schiavo's 14th Amendment rights. That was unbelievably bizarre, cynical, and typical of the evil of the President who appointed you.
Let me go on to say that your textbook determination of the factors deciding the grant or denial of injunctive relief was horribly irresponsible, even criminal. A death row criminal would not be forced to this kind of a burden to gain a stay of execution to consider all possible grounds of error, even out of time. That's what you do with habeas relief, Judge! And most of all, you violated the most basic principle of all in your review---the plain language of the statute itself!
I will remind you of when they taught you law at Stetson. Unless there is a constitutional standard that has been violated (of which there was none), NOTHING overrides the directives and plain meaning of an Act of the U.S. Congress! It ordered you to hold a de novo hearing, and that meant you preserve all parties and evidence. To act like the life of Terri Schiavo was irrelevant to such proceeding was evil incarnate! You should be held in contempt by Congress itself, and removed from the bench through impeachment. God have mercy on you, for your callous criminal neglect of the oath you took, to uphold the Constitution and laws of the U.S. This is why we will have court-packing by the President and the Senate--to undo the power of horrible abusers of office by men like you! Independent judiciary--Ha!
Both decisions, the Gonzalez case favoring the political right (huh?), the Schiavo decision favoring the political left, are proving the point of many conservatives that Federal judges, appointed for life under the Constitution's article III, act as political ideologues with no problem in their minds of defying the Congress which appropriates money for their court for their operations, or otherwise act as if they have no law to whom they are to be accountable.
Needless to say, I have new reasons to sharpen my legal writing skills. Later.
