Thomas Sowell cuts to the chase, in language far clearer than I could ever muster (also read here). I was angered that Congress seemed to overstep its bounds in passing a law to interfere with a family matter - but I am angered more by the fact that they had to (and they acted Constitutionally!), because another government entity (which I have far less sympathy for) had made a poor call that violated the Constitutional right to life of a woman. As far as I'm concerned from my reading on the case, there is significant doubt as to whether or not Terri is in a vegetative state, and that alone should force us to "err on the side of life", as the President has stated. Finally, the husband's behavior can't be viewed without suspicion - although to be fair, it's a tough situation and I can't honestly say what I'd do were I in his shoes (assuming he's telling the truth). This case is certainly a gray area, and the usual suspects will fall on the same sides - those who err on the side of life, and those who are the purveyors of the culture of death.
To the conservatives who are willing to "live and let live" - I felt the same way until I was drawn into the case and understood more of the facts. I just wanted to let her die and not think about it, since this is a matter between the husband and the family, right? Well, turning your face from an ugly reality won't make it go away, and this is truly an ugly reality. Think about it: the willful starvation of a woman, and her only crime is that she has become an inconvenience to one person - we treat animals and criminals more humanely. I still have sympathy for the "live and let live" conservatives (I'm thinking more libertarian folks like Glenn Reynolds, Neal Boortz, and Charles Johnson) especially since many of this stripe have personal experiences that mirror this case. However, viewing this as an objective outsider (objective in the sense of Constitutional vs. moral implications, with no previous experience to color my viewpoint) I feel I've come down on the right side of things now.
I view the behavior of the MSM as the most disgusting thing in this whole episode, for they have been the ones who have shaped the public debate on this by manipulating and omitting the facts. I never heard of the nurse (who in a sworn affidavit, gave a statement contradicting Mr. Schiavo and casting him into suspicion) until I listened to Sean Hannity. Or of the doctors and neurosurgeons who have stated that Terri is not only not vegetative, but can possibly be rehabilitated by new treatments. What is clear to me now is the MSM is bent on seeing a "conservative crack-up" by painting this as a Constitutional overreach by the Republicans to split those crazy Evangelicals from the Constitutional law-and-order conservatives. That the MSM will distort a story to allow a woman to starve to death in order to score political points against President Bush shows you what's most important to these people. It's power. To them, power is life, and not vice versa.
5 comments:
I do now think that Terri should not be killed, but I still don't come down completely on either side. As I see it:
Michael Schiavo should have been removed as Terri's guardian as soon as he had a child by another women. He is only her guardian by virtue of their marriage and he chose to end that marriage. Michael should certainly not inherit any money from Terri's death. The remaining family's wishes should be honored, i.e. keep Terri alive. In that sense, whether or not there is a chance for recovery dosn't even play into the decision.
As to whether or not Terri actually is in a persistive vegetative state, my reaction is still to trust the courts. Deciding where lies truth is the reason for the judicial system's existance. Both sides (keep in mind that now both sides means national political machines) are going to present selective evidence to make their position appear correct and the opposition's position appear ludacris. Presumably the Florida state courts heard all the evidence from both sides.
Only releated to this issue by Terri's tragic condition is the question of whether Congress has the right to make a law specifically because the members disagree with the decision of a state court. One might also ask whether the President has the right to use some of his power, say as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, to deny the decision of a state court? Is this a special case? Certainly, but isn't every case a special case? My point isn't that Terri shouldn't be fed, but that Congress shouldn't overstep their duty. I do applaud their compassion.
At the end of the day, what then should be done? My solution: Stop starving Terri to death. Retry the case of Terri's desire for treatment with the family as legal guardians and Michael as an ex-husband. What would be a good thing for Congress do? Make a retroactive law that whould allow Terri's family to file for divorce based on Michael's adultery, the fact the Terri is not capable of filing for herself, and the fact that Terri's legal guardian is the adulterer.
Good solution, and in fact this was probably the best one - which I thought should have been tried from the start. I never thought Michael should have been making decisions for Terri based on his adultery and other suspicious actions, and Terri's parents are willing to assume all care and responsibility for their daughter. Why couldn't he just give up custody - esp. since he obviously isn't all that attached? The fact that this wasn't pursued as far as I can tell makes me critical of the Schindler's law team.
I disagree with the court's decision, but I certainly wasn't presented with all the evidence that they were, so I'll give you that point. To me though, the physical evidence was just too compelling. But, the courts have ruled, so I and every other person in this country is forced to live with that.
Congress did just fine in my book - they merely passed a law requiring federal judicial review, because the Constitution of the USA requires a right-to-life, even if the FL Constitution does not. You presented a bad argument of the Pres. using his CoC powers, though - remember Ike sent troops to escort the young black students into a Little Rock school, in defiance of a state government (albeit the state executive, not the courts). As long as the Constitution of the US trumps whatever law passed by the states, the executive is required to uphold the Constitution of the US as was sworn.
This is heartbreaking.
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/
Affidavit.pdf
That affidavit is persuasive. I wonder who is providing finacial support for Michael and for Terri's parents legal representation? Could it be that Michael has been able to obtain significantly higher powered legal help?
Calling in the Army was probably a bad example since that action should require a much larger burden of necessity than Congress passing a very focused law. Forgetting the idea of calling the troops today, there is some parallel between this situation and desegregation. Ike had the support of the judicial and the opposition of the state (lumping state government together for now). Congress had the support of the executive, the oppostion of the judicial and the opposition of the state. I think the key is that it is the judicial's job to interpret the Constitution. Ike didn't decide for himself that those student's rights were being trampled. In Terri's case, the Supreme Court had already decided not to hear the case of Terri's rights when Congress decided to try and protect those rights. Actually it looks like the Supreme Court decided not to order Terri's feeding tube replaced while the Constitutional case is being filed. It certainly seems to me that if the Supreme Court thought there might be any chance that they would rule in Terri's parents' favor then they would have ordered the feeding tube replaced, but maybe there is enough leeway there to say that Congress did not act in opposition to the Supreme Court.
More Thomas Sowell:
"The liberal line, both in politics and in the media, is that Congress somehow behaved unconstitutionally. All federal courts except the Supreme Court are created by Congress. The Constitution itself gives Congress the authority to define or restrict the jurisdictions of federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
Is the Constitution unconstitutional?"
Better than I've said it...Congress' legislation required the federal judiciary to review the case "de novo", from scratch. The judges have blatantly flouted that. So, I'm kinda tired of hearing from conservatives (Michael Smerconish, Philly morning talk show host, in particular) that Congress "overstepped its bounds". The one branch acting unconstitutionally here is the one that has always been.
Anyway, in the interest of being fair, Hugh Hewitt links to Glenn's post on a criticism of the affidavit, with a response of his own:
http://hughhewitt.com/#postid1490
Post a Comment