Letter to my Congressman
I wrote to my congressman after the vote on the Terri Schiavo bill to let him know that I was disappointed that he had voted for the bill. He responded within days, claiming that Ms. Schiavo's due process protections had been diminished by the fact that she had not been afforded independent counsel in the matter, and that "justice and elementary human decency dictate[d] that she must."
I wrote the following in response to his letter, coupled with the statement released by House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, in which he states that that he hopes to change the laws to affect future cases:
"Dear Representative McCotter,
Thank you for your swift response to my email regarding your vote on S. 686. I appreciate that you took time out of the Easter week to reply.
While your personal convictions regarding this particular case are commendable, your argument that Ms. Schiavo’s due process rights were diminished is flawed, in that the issue of Ms. Schiavo’s due process rights had already been heard, determined, and upheld by the Florida state judicial system. The numerous denials of the appeals through the federal courts affirmed the findings of the state courts.
The greater issue here, beyond the case of this family’s ordeal, is that, in passage of S. 686, the U.S. Congress has overreached its powers by attempting to dictate to the Judiciary what it may or may not do. When the first federal court denials were issued, the Schindler’s argued that Congress had intended for Ms. Schiavo’s feeding tube to be reinserted, at least temporarily, and that the courts were not abiding by these intentions. I hope that you will read Judge Stanley Birch’s last opinion on this case, as he cogently articulates the violation of the separation of powers that the passage of this bill represents.
Your sentiments that you voted “[a]s a husband and a father . . . to empower the hopes of Ms. Schiavo’s parents and loved ones who do not wish to see their daughter legally starved to death before their anguished eyes” is an effective way of putting a human face on this tragedy. In your role as an elected representative, however, you must put aside the sympathies you may feel for one side or the other in a particular case, in order to ensure fairness and equity to all citizens. By choosing to empower Ms. Schiavo’s parents, you diminished the rights of Mr. Schiavo as legal guardian, and undermined the authority of the state court, which had litigated this issue thoroughly.
Thank you again for your attention to this constituent, and I wish you success in the next session. I look forward to meeting you in person during your upcoming office hours.
Best Regards,
Matthew J. Rush
Livonia, MI"
I wrote the following in response to his letter, coupled with the statement released by House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, in which he states that that he hopes to change the laws to affect future cases:
"Dear Representative McCotter,
Thank you for your swift response to my email regarding your vote on S. 686. I appreciate that you took time out of the Easter week to reply.
While your personal convictions regarding this particular case are commendable, your argument that Ms. Schiavo’s due process rights were diminished is flawed, in that the issue of Ms. Schiavo’s due process rights had already been heard, determined, and upheld by the Florida state judicial system. The numerous denials of the appeals through the federal courts affirmed the findings of the state courts.
The greater issue here, beyond the case of this family’s ordeal, is that, in passage of S. 686, the U.S. Congress has overreached its powers by attempting to dictate to the Judiciary what it may or may not do. When the first federal court denials were issued, the Schindler’s argued that Congress had intended for Ms. Schiavo’s feeding tube to be reinserted, at least temporarily, and that the courts were not abiding by these intentions. I hope that you will read Judge Stanley Birch’s last opinion on this case, as he cogently articulates the violation of the separation of powers that the passage of this bill represents.
Your sentiments that you voted “[a]s a husband and a father . . . to empower the hopes of Ms. Schiavo’s parents and loved ones who do not wish to see their daughter legally starved to death before their anguished eyes” is an effective way of putting a human face on this tragedy. In your role as an elected representative, however, you must put aside the sympathies you may feel for one side or the other in a particular case, in order to ensure fairness and equity to all citizens. By choosing to empower Ms. Schiavo’s parents, you diminished the rights of Mr. Schiavo as legal guardian, and undermined the authority of the state court, which had litigated this issue thoroughly.
Thank you again for your attention to this constituent, and I wish you success in the next session. I look forward to meeting you in person during your upcoming office hours.
Best Regards,
Matthew J. Rush
Livonia, MI"
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home