Jason Levine @ Q Daily News writes:
After reading Conigliaro’s chronology and Q&A section, I’m left with the understanding that every single court that has held a hearing has concluded that Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state and that there is clear and convincing evidence— the strongest burden of proof available in civil cases— that she would have wished removal of life support measures. This determination was based on more than just evidence from reports of conversations with her husband, as well, something that’s not mentioned too much in media reports of the conflict. I’m also left with the realization that every attempt to subvert the ultimate court rulings have come from the realm of politics— initially, Terri’s Law, and now, a farcical consensus bill from the U.S. Congress, something that manages to be both unsurprising and terrifying at the same time.
What I’ve been confused about— and while slightly less so, remain confused about— is what the law being rushed through Congress right now aims to do. It seems from reports that it’s a case-specific law, allowing Federal judicial review of the state court rulings in Schiavo’s case; what I don’t understand is how there’s some idea that this will lead to a different outcome. As I understand it, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has denied every appeal and dismissed every case brought by those who have tried to overturn the rulings of the Florida courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court has twice declined to intervene, once in January and once yesterday. So we now seem to have have what might be well less than a majority of our Congressmen (since it only takes a majority of present legislators, not of all legislators, to pass a law) furiously posturing, and the President himself returning to Washington, D.C. early, all in the name of likely having no effect on the ultimate outcome whatsoever.
In the end, it seems that most everyone agrees on the right for people to create formal living wills that spell out how we wish to be treated in the case of tragedies like this. In Schiavo’s case, there isn’t a written living will, but every level of court available for recourse has determined her wishes in a manner that is as legally binding as a living will would have been. In spite of this, we now have the highest elected body of legislators in the country acting to force an entirely different set of wishes. What gives them the right? What would prevent Congress— or any elected body— from acting similarly even if a formal living will existed? Therein lies the real horror of the Schiavo case; apparently, it’s one more way that some seem willing to let the lawmakers of this country intrude on the private debates and decisions of its citizens.
Tom Spencer@ Corrente addresses Tom Delay:
Oh yeah, Tom. I remember how you were such an incredible advocate of preserving life a couple of years ago. You really busted your ass trying to find a peaceful solution prior to IraqWar Part II -- a conflict that has now killed tens of thousands.
Am I remembering something wrong? This isn't all just shameless political grandstanding designed to distract the public from W's 45% approval rating, is it?
I'm so disgusted I don't know quite what to say.
from Michael Shaw @ BAGnews:
"It's my feeling that, since the election, the radical right has been overreaching. I say this because they seem to have forgotten how to put a good metaphor together..."
Dahlia Lithwick @ Slate
Activist Legislators: the boundless overreaching behind Congress' new Schiavo bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment