I've got questions, who's got answers?
Questions of the day on the Terri Schiavo case...-- Can we assume that President Bush has ended his crusade against "activist judges," now that he's sent the Terri Schiavo case back to federal district court judge James Whittimore for reversal? Can we at the very least assume that he supports "congressional activism?"
-- How can Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist call the Congressional intervention "a unique case" when Schiavo is just one of up to 35,000 people in this country determined to be in a persistent vegetative state? What is Congress' plan for the next 20 "Terri Schiavos?"
-- Are you as confused as I am over the Radical Right's hierarchy of "family values?" Here's a clarification, courtesy of House Majority Whip and general slimeball Tom DeLay. "The sanctity of life overshadows the sanctity of marriage," he proclaimed Sunday.
-- Do you keep a notebook with you at all times for these golden moments when the Lord speaks to us through his Earthly intermediaries?
-- Has there ever been a more disgusting political maneuver than DeLay's grandstanding on this issue? DeLay has attempted to provoke a "Passion of the Christ"-like political revival for 2005, even labeling his House legislation "the Palm Sunday Compromise." He has accused Terri's husband, Michael, of giving his wife inadequate medical care, and questioned his motives because he has fathered two children with another woman during the 15 years since Terri entered her vegetative state. Clarification: Michael became a nurse to tend to his wife, and has been repeatedly described by the courts as a devoted husband. Those courts have also ruled that Terri is a vegetable, completely unaware of her surroundings, due to the fact that most of her cerebral cortex, the thinking part of her brain, is gone?
-- Anyone else reminded of Brother Justin on "Carnivale" when considering DeLay?
-- How would the world be different today if President Bush, as he was Sunday, had been willing to leave his ranch and work in his pajamas in August of 2001? Was America's "culture of life" more at peril in the Schiavo case than when there were reports of imminent terrorist attacks by Osama bin Laden?
-- Why is MSNBC reporting that "both sides" of the political spectrum are using Schiavo for personal political gain when it was the conservatives- and the conservatives alone- who brought the issue before the Congress?
-- Who are the people who stand outside Michael Schiavo's house and shout out their personal judgments on his life? Where do they get their balls?
-- Why did Senate Democrats, ignoring the principles of seperation of power, the rule of law, the right to privacy, and the sanctity of marriage, refuse to show up Sunday for a voice vote that took less than two minutes? What did they not learn in November about telling Americans what they stand for?
posted by CM @ 9:12 PM
6 Comments:
Brother Justin made a comment on last night's episode that linked him more with the Christian right than ever before:
As I'm sure you recall, he said that the Devil invented separation of Church and State to keep the Christians from running their own country.
I bet DeLay has one of those cool, creepy tree tatoos.
You know, I never thought of that, but you never see him with his shirt off.
That IS a cool tattoo!! I don't care if it is a symbol of the ultimate evil, I want one anyway.
Speaking of HBO, Bill Maher made a good point this week about the case, asking if you've ever heard the following - "If I'm ever in a vegetative state like this I want you to do everything you can to keep me alive." Still, I don't even want to have an opinion on this specific case for the very reason these congresspeople are neglecting- this is a family concern and none of my business.
Chris, Nick...as members of my family, I'd like to make my own wishes known here in writing and in the legally binding arena of blogosphere commentary - If I'm ever in a helpless, vegetative state, I DON'T want you to unplug my feeding tube.
That's too slow. I want you to sneak up behind me and put a bullet in my brain.
Aaron right, – this is a family concern. What business does a court have saying if a mother can or cannot feed her child? In my simple mind, that's the fundamental core of the issue.
Maybe some people trust our friends in Washington D.C. enough to make these kinds of decisions, but I don't. IMO, the Federal Government should not be involved in decisions on abortion (what this Schiavo case is really about), capital punishment, removing feeding tubes, etc. Follow these links for good reasons why government should not be trusted with these decisions:
Hitler's "Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases"
http://www.holocaust-trc.org/hndcp.htm
"Cleft lip abortion done 'in good faith'"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1439312,00.html
Chris, part of your confusion could be because you are not being cynical enough. IMO terms like "activist judges", "family values" and "culture of life" are simply focus group tested phrases used only when they support a politician's argument. When politicians speak for the record, the only thing on their minds is how to get re-elected and keep their power. In this case, what good is having all of that power if you can't use it randomly every once and a while to literally decide who lives and who dies?
A thought for you on "activist judges": a law professor has told me that you will not find the concept of judicial review anywhere in the The Constitution of the United States. TA
I know I said I wouldn't express an opinion on this and I really wanted to refrain from commenting further, but since that's all it is - an opinion, and because I just can't help myself...there's something else about this that no one else seems to be saying.
I jokingly alluded to this earlier, but is it just me or is removing a feeding tube seem like an incredibly long and drawn out way to die? I understand that any other way to do it would be deemed "actively" killing someone, but it sounds cruel. Of course, this just reveals my ignorance because I have no idea what kind of pain she's in or is capable of feeling with a diminished cerebral cortex.
The other thing is that, Chris, I do see another side of this in regards to rights for the handicapped and how we define quality of life. A big tragedy here, which we can learn from, is that we should all have living wills that speak to our own wishes. Ultimately though, the wishes of Schiavo have everything to do with her husband (and her parents), and nothing to do with commentators (like us.)
I think we can all agree, however, that politicians and anyone using this to push an agenda on the public is a horrific bloodsucker. Anonymous (TA) is right that this, in many ways, is really about abortion for a lot of people and both sides using it to define and solidify their positions on who "determines life". And like any complex issue like that, this just drives home the point that if you're looking for absolutes in this world, you're plain shit out of luck.
As John Kelly (David Caruso) used to say on the first season of NYPD Blue - to quote a NETWORK TV show, Loose Change - "everything's a situation."
I yield to Dahlia Lathwick, Slate.com's senior editor and legal authority, "This is not a slippery-slope case, where it's a short hop from 'executing' those in persistent vegetative conditions to killing anyone with a disability. This is a case in which an established right-to-refuse claim, litigated for years up and down through the appeals court, is being thwarted by parents with no custodial claim to their child."
Ending this established legal tradition in favor of- only- a focus-group tested phrase like "culture of life" IS the heart of this matter, as we all seem to agree.
I found a great website on the established concept of judicial review. TA's professor is right that it's not in the Constitution. It goes back to Marbury v. Madison in 1803. There may be three reasons why judicial review was not included-
1- it was never intended
2- the framers thought the power was sufficiently clear from the structure of government, or...
3- the framers didn't think the issue would ever come up, because it was thought that Congress would never act outside of its enumerated powers.
Google "judicial review" and click on the first entry from what appears to be the website of Missouri-KC's law school for a synopsis of the Marbury case and its legacy. Or e-mail your old high school civics teacher and make his/her week.
Post a Comment
<< Home