OK, this is the last time I'll address this issue; but I just couldn't help myself after reading this morning's stories on this increasingly bizarre case. The Supreme Court of the United States of America--which, by the way, leans quite far to the right of center--denied to hear Terri's case yet a third time. Now Terri's parents are scrambling with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals yet AGAIN.
Barring the Keystone Cops imagery, this judicial maneuvering brings up a VERY interesting point that is brought up consistently by the Republicans: that of "activist judges." What are "activist judges"? Well, as the Republicans will tell you, they are judges who thwart the will of the people and "make up law as they go" with little regard for the Constitution or judicial precedents. A "restrained" judge--those apparently favored by the Republican Party--are judges who take the law as they "find it"; that is, they make no effort to amend the law to fit with the times.
In a Republican universe, laws banning segregation, and those supporting a woman's right to vote and a woman's right to choose the fate of her fetus (within reason) would all be heresy. But here's the Republican conundrum. As Salon reported quite succinctly: All together........ 22 federal judges have had a hand in bringing the Schiavo case to where it is today. Thirteen of them were appointed by Republicans; just nine were appointed by Democrats. So, let's review: most of these "activist judges" that are denying "life" to Terri are REPUBLICAN.
This of course sits at odds with the "Culture of Life" movement sweeping the Republican party. They can't blame it on Democrats, who are always associated with activism in the judicial system. So, what to make of the congressional meddling? It shows quite clearly that the Republicans just plain hate any ruling that doesn't sit with their moral views. They are using Terri as a political pawn in the Culture War. And not only that! The ultimate, most delicious irony is that the congressmen who voted for this insane law are inviting the judicial system to BE ACTIVIST!! To rail against precedent. To go against the will of the American people (almost every poll has shown that Americans support Mr. Schiavo by a landslide).
To essentially invite something into their party that has heretofore been treated as a pus-oozing leper. I wrote in a prior missive written the day after the 2004 election that I was going to enjoy watching the Republican Party implode. God, don't you love it when you're right?
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Al Barger
You're right- there's just no excuse for Republican hypocrisy on federalism. The Schiavo law was only the most obvious height of it. Republicans support federalism only when it serves their intended ends. States rights meant not a damned thing to them when it involved the rights of states to liberalize drug laws, for example.
2 - Dave Nalle
Please restrain yourself from utter BS while making an otherwise good point- people will take you more seriously:
>>In a Republican Universe, laws banning segregation, and those supporting a woman's right to vote ... would all be heresy.<<
Both of these sets of laws were not only supported by Republicans, but passed into law primarily with Republican support, over the opposition of many Democrats, introduced by Republican legislators and voted in with Republican majorities.
As for your main point, the Republican judges in question are mostly Reagan appointees and they are therefore more likely to be 'real' republicans and not influenced by the Neocon mentality. Therefore they will not be activists, because this idea of warping the law by using judges is a Neocon idea, and as we all know the Neocons are just socially conservative Democrats in Republican clothing.
Dave
3 - Steve S
It's my understanding from watching and reading about Terri's case ad nauseum, that the religious contingent that is actively working on Terri's behalf do not blame Democrats for being obstacles. I see Terri's father attacking Jeb Bush on tv constantly and they promise to 'go after' any Congressman or political person who does not adhere to their wishes and who they feel they put in office.
This is like an internal thing in the Republican party, the Democrats had their internal thing this last election and are still working theirs out.
Hopefully good can come from both situations as there are claims here that the Democrats 'pander' to the African American community for votes, but reallly want to 'keep them down'. Well, we can see the exact same thing going on with the Republican party making promises to religious extremists and now they aren't exactly helping those they made promises to on the election trail.
Both parties need an overhaul, at least this is the first thing the Democrats have a head start on. Both parties need to learn to not make promises to groups that they have no intention of keeping.
Hopefully good will come out of all of this for America.
4 - Z.Z. Bachman
Dave and Steve make very good points. I don't see this rather personal issue as a Republican or Democratic polarizing event. It started forming up that way until... oops... congress screwed it up and turned it into a major nationwide guilt trip. (Note both Republicans and Democrats solidly voted to try and reverse the decision.) There are many families that deal with this issue every year! It's the conflict between her parents and her husband that makes this so unusually cruel and of course "newsworthy".
I feel sorry for the body that once was Terri Schiavo. Yes that sounds cold, but the reality is that when you see the MRI/CAT scans she basically has only a brainstem left!! That does not in my opinion however justify depriving the body from sustanance UNLESS it is CLEARLY what the "individual" directed. This of course assumes she still is an "individual" and can make that decision. The husband is the party whose motives you have to question not "republicans". Is he acting out of "love" or personal self interest? She was in NO pain, i.e. no morphine drip before feeding tube removed, so what was the motivation for the insistance on his position? For seven years mind you! So much love there. Hmmm. The parents were willing to take care of what was left of her living body. Why not step away from it? File for divorce on some technicality. She was NOT suffering according to experts. No one will ever KNOW what she really wanted AFTER her heart attack or during the course of those seven years. No one except Terri Schiavo, and perhaps not even her!
As an independent I think both parties have their heads stuck up their asses on this one. The only lesson here is the old slogan of the BSA. Be prepared! Yes... that means a living will or a clear statement of power of attorney. Declare your intent beforehand and the courts and congress should then bud out! 70% of America feel that way according to an ABC poll. It's then an issue for you and your own personal belief in an existance after death not a political one. At what point in the "healing" process does society just give up on life? Bio-ethics is a bitch! -- zzb
5 - RJ
"In a Republican Universe, laws banning segregation, and those supporting a woman's right to vote and a woman's right to choose the fate of her fetus (within reason) would all be heresy."
Sounds like you don't know much about Republicans, if you can make a statement like that...
6 - Dave Nalle
Sounds like everything he knows about Republicans was spoon fed into his brain by moveon.org, which is sadly becoming all too common.
Dave
7 - Tristan
you know there ARE other human beings besides just "Republicans" and what the Republicans call "Leftist Liberal Democrats" ...!!!!
Labels...labels.....labels.....
Christians, Muslims, Republicans, Democrats , .......Aaaaagggghhhh!!!!
We're all part of the same family: human beings... we could achieve so much more by "building" than by "tearing down"...?????
8 - Dave Nalle
Can we hug now?
Dave
9 - Tristan
thanks dave .....
I knew you were full of compassion and good intentions!
10 - Eric Olsen
glad to see the rapprochement