Thursday, March 24, 2005

Jeb Bush on Schiavo


"I can't go beyond what my powers are, here.

And I won't do it."

Call me nit-picky, but doesn't the first point sort of necessarily preclude the second? If he can't, he can't. But apparently, he also won't. Which must be eating at him from the inside like termites in a rotting building.

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

“America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens,” -President George W. Bush


President Bush, outspoken critic of "Activist Judges," is a hypocrite of the highest order.

The reason we have courts, the reason we traditionally assign these brutal fact-finding responsibilities to those courts, is that intimate legal custody and life-or-death decisions should not be determined based on popular referenda. They need to be rooted, as much as
possible, in rock-solid legal rules.

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-treatment claim, litigated for years up and down
through the appeals courts, is being thwarted by parents with no custodial claim
to their child. By stepping in merely to sow doubt as to whom Terri Schiavo's
proper custodian might be, rather than creating some new constitutional right to
a "culture of life," Congress has simply called the existing legal regime into
doubt without establishing a new one. This new law offers no clarity about what
the new federal claims might be. It just forum-shops for a more tractable

You can put aside the doctrine of federalism for Terri Schiavo, and
the principles of separation of powers, and comity, and of deference to finality
and the rule of law. But you'd want to be certain, on the day you do so, that
what you're sacrificing them for some concrete legal value that matters a whole
lot more. Subordinating a centuries-old culture of law to an amorphous, legally
meaningless "culture of life," is not a decision to be taken over a

Simply put: Terry Schiavo's case was decided in a court of law. That law is binding. Congress has decided for purely political reasons that they do not like the way the court decided this issue. So they are going to overrule the court, in order to get the result they want.

Doing this is utterly unconstitutional. It threatens our entire system of law. And it is being done right now, under our noses.

And just in case you're laboring under the false impression that any of this is being done for the "right reasons," take a look at the GOP provided "talking points" for this outrage: