The Constitutional Merits of the Schiavo Case:
It looks like Congress has taken what I think is the unprecedented and rather bizarre step of expanding the jurisdiction of the federal courts to allow a particular District Court to take jurisdiction over a single case, that of Terri Schiavo. Missing from the press coverage I have read is any sense of the merits of the federal case enabled by the new law. As I understand it, a federal court will now review the merits of the state court decision ordering the withdrawal of the feeding tube to see if the withdrawal satisfies federal statutory and constitutional law. Does any one have a sense of what the federal court is likely to do? Are there obvious constitutional problems with the state court order, and if so, under what theories and supported by what precedents?
I have opened comments. Please keep it civil and focused on the merits of the constitutional and statutory arguments likely to be raised in federal court. Anything else will be deleted.
UPDATE: Stephen Henderson has a good story on some of the legal issues raised by the Schiavo law here.
I have opened comments. Please keep it civil and focused on the merits of the constitutional and statutory arguments likely to be raised in federal court. Anything else will be deleted.
UPDATE: Stephen Henderson has a good story on some of the legal issues raised by the Schiavo law here.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Hugh Hewitt Responds on Schiavo and the Judiciary:
- Congressional Intent and the Schiavo Case:
- Eleventh Circuit Affirms in Schiavo Case:
- Decision in Schiavo Case:
- The Shiavo Complaint
- The Constitutional Merits of the Schiavo Case: