Ideal System...Schiavo as an illustration

[KellyRae]

Well thought out post, but I respectfully disagree.

I identified the "claim" you which you analyzed and carefully examined by way of example. The new federal law contemplated the possibility that the Schindlers' could bring an action which asserted any possible violations of her rights under the Constitution or United States law. Some such actions would conceivably (perhaps likely) involve matters which were not, in fact, litigated at any time at the federal level (granted, prevailing would be unlikely, but the court should work on the assumption that such a claim could be brought as the new law provided for such a right). In fact, one would have to assume such would be the case if you operate on the presumption that the law was meant to have a purpose. It's hard to see how a court can "know" that there are no such actions which the Schindlers' would pursue pursuant to the new act.

The absence of precedent on point, which, as you correctly point out, can't really exist because of the particularly unique nature of this case, only serves to illustrate that there is, as some would say "no controlling legal authority" and, as such, there was no requirement that the judges rule as they did - but by doing so, they rendered the federal law meaningless.

As regards the harm in granting the injunction you raise a fair point, but were the Schindler's successful on the merits (as unlikely as that is, as you correctly point out), the harm by not granting the injunctive relief is irreversible. Which is why I have a problem with the ruling and I do not think the standard for a TRO is appropriate here or, for that matter, in capital cases generally (notwithstanding the slew of precedent that yourself as well as others have presented).

[LaggyLou]

[ QUOTE ]
. The new federal law contemplated the possibility that the Schindlers' could bring an action which asserted any possible violations of her rights under the Constitution or United States law. Some such actions would conceivably (perhaps likely) involve matters which were not, in fact, litigated at any time at the federal level (granted, prevailing would be unlikely, but the court should work on the assumption that such a claim could be brought as the new law provided for such a right). In fact, one would have to assume such would be the case if you operate on the presumption that the law was meant to have a purpose. It's hard to see how a court can "know" that there are no such actions which the Schindlers' would pursue pursuant to the new act.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I have to say I admire your willingness to look at the other side. The thing of it is, and where I think we are having a disagreement, is over what a "claim" is.

When the Schindlers went to federal court, they didn't (and couldn't) ask for a TRO as relief in and of itself. Nor could they ask for a TRO simply to give them time to think of all of their possible federal claims. Rather, they had file a complaint stating the claims they were asserting, THEN ask the Court for a TRO pending resolution of those claims.

In other words, what I am saying is that it was up to the Schindlers to tell the Court the federal claims they were asserting. And the Schindlers did so, asserting a couple of constitutional claims and a some statutory claims.

To get the TRO, the Schindlers had to show that they had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of at least one of their claims. Thus, to determine whether to grant the TRO, the judge had to evaluate each and every one of their claims. Now one thing you may or may not realize is that the "substantial likelihood of success" standard is not necessarily a very high one where, as here, the potential "irreparable injury" is severe. But in this case the federal claims asserted by the Schindlers were, simply put, just awful and really stood NO chance of success under current law.

And that, to me, is the really ridiculous part of all of this. Delay and his pals ACTED as if what they did was give the Schindlers new rights and the chance to have a brand new trial on everything. But what they ACTUALLY did was much, much less. What they ACTUALLY did was give federal courts jurisdiction to consider what any lawyer could instantly recognize were total loser claims. The federal courts did consider those claims and properly rejected them.

Again, let me say that I admire your willingness to listen to other views and to look at the stuff that others have cited. I hope that, if you continue to look into this, that you consider that the federal courts had very little choice in the matter if they were to be faithful to the law. In that regard, remember that at least 6 11th circuit judges and 6 Supreme Court judges had to vote against further reviiew of the 2-1 appellate court decision.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
And that, to me, is the really ridiculous part of all of this. Delay and his pals ACTED as if what they did was give the Schindlers new rights and the chance to have a brand new trial on everything. But what they ACTUALLY did was much, much less. What they ACTUALLY did was give federal courts jurisdiction to consider what any lawyer could instantly recognize were total loser claims. The federal courts did consider those claims and properly rejected them.



[/ QUOTE ]

What I don't get is if they had Constitutional claims, the federal court would have had jurisdiction anyway...so, what did the statute really do if its purpose was to give jurisdiction?

[LaggyLou]

[ QUOTE ]

What I don't get is if they had Constitutional claims, the federal court would have had jurisdiction anyway...so, what did the statute really do if its purpose was to give jurisdiction?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't know for sure, but my guess is some combination of the following:

1) some of the federal claims were in fact considered and rejected by state courts, and therefore couldn't be brought up again; and

2) other claims would likely have been barred by the rule that you need to bring all of your claims arising from one set of facts in one case or by abstention principles.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
1) some of the federal claims were in fact considered and rejected by state courts, and therefore couldn't be brought up again;

[/ QUOTE ]

The state court's ruling on a constitutional question aren't binding on federal courts

[ QUOTE ]
2) other claims would likely have been barred by the rule that you need to bring all of your claims arising from one set of facts in one case or by abstention principles.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would suspect this is closer, but the Constitutional claims didn't come into play until the "state action" of ordering the removal of the feeding tube, thus, they couldn't have been argued.

[LaggyLou]

[ QUOTE ]

The state court's ruling on a constitutional question aren't binding on federal courts

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that's not quite right. Litigants cannot take a federal claim into state court -- even a constitutional question -- lose, and then relitigate the same claim in federal courts. That is not becuase a state court's pronoucement on constitutional law is binding on federal courts, it is because the state court's adjudication is binding on the parties. If you take a federal claim into state court, and lose, your only chance to get federal review is an appeal to the US Supreme Court. The Schindler's did appeal to the USSC following the first litigation in the florida Courts so they apparently did have some federal claims in their first case.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
2) other claims would likely have been barred by the rule that you need to bring all of your claims arising from one set of facts in one case or by abstention principles.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would suspect this is closer, but the Constitutional claims didn't come into play until the "state action" of ordering the removal of the feeding tube, thus, they couldn't have been argued.

[/ QUOTE ]

They could have been argued, and I believe were, on direct appeal. There was also, I understand, a 2003 federal lawsuit.