I was reading Olbermann's interview with the man who was appointed to reconcile the differences with the Schiavo case. I was struck by the following exchange:
OLBERMANN: Ultimately, when you were involved in this case, what were your recommendations to Governor Bush and would you give the same recommendations under these circumstances today?WOLFSON: My recommendations were that additional swallowing tests and neurological tests should be performed for the purpose of resolving the dispute between the parties. Because the legal process and the medical process, I felt, had been competent and had met the standards of proof. But only if the parties agreed in advance as to how the results of those tests could be used.
If you'll look at my final report, we had a draft agreement. And we almost got there. At 11:50 p.m. on the 30th of November, Sunday night, before my report was due on the first, all of us were pretty much agreeing to walk into that room and talk about how we would do that.
Mr. Felos called me at 11:50, Michael's attorney. And he said, "Jay, I can't do it. I can't do it, because I'm challenging the law that appointed you, the constitutionality of it. And if I accept anything that you're proposing, then I am diluting my legal and constitutional challenge. I can't."
He was right in doing that legally. And as you know, the law was deemed unconstitutional and then everything I did was technically moot.
That's a shame. He was right, legally, but it sounds like it might have been a real opportunity for a peaceful resolution. (Although no one could have planned for the hysteria that actually has happened.) And I don't see why it would have been impossible to move forward with that process while still opposing the constitutionality of the law. Did he just feel like it would dilute his standing, or was it actually true in a legal sense?
Posted by tunesmith at March 26, 2005 07:06 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://politology.us/mt/zxcv.cgi/45
