|
| More on Schiavo case | | Date Created: Mar 26, 2005, 03:55 PM |
Thomas Sowell has a third essay out on the Schiavo case. In it he engages in more liberal bashing which I generally agree with but doesn't really support his argument. The hypocrits in this case are the Republicans, however well intentioned.
He correctly explains the appeals process -- we've heard of numerous appeals that have been turned down. He is also correct that the denial of these appeals says nothing about "the fundamental question of guilt or innocence". But then he goes off the rails again.
The issue wasn't guilt or innocence. That's a misdirect. The issue was who gets to decide the disposition of Terri Schiavo and what little life is left of her. It's quite possible the court made the wrong decision in the eyes of Sowell and many others, but the appeals were about whether the decision process was handled properly (and whether other courts should review it, or most implausibly, the legislature should have a say in it).
Sowell then goes on to make the bogus argument (both short term and in its implications) that the federal Congress should be able to require that the judicial process start over. Amazingly, he then makes this a defense of Constitutional law case and brings up the liberals' anti-Constitutional behavior. Apparently his argument is that these are Republicans passing this Schiavo-specific law, so it must be Constitutional. And further that Congress somehow creates the federal courts that Congress should be able to engage in any retroactive and case-specific law it cares to.
To quote Sowell:
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?
Well no, but that's irrelevant. Sowell thinks the problem is that judges are ignoring the laws passed by elected representatives and we are replacing democracy with judicial rule. This is true in other areas in recent decades (although many state judges are elected FWIW) and it's also true that liberals and activists try to get around representative legislation by using the courts, but that isn't the issue here.
The issue is that the legislature (state or federal) has no basis to be passing retroactive and case-specific laws about an issue that was settled by legitimate court process whether they like the decision or not. Think of what would happen if Congress got involved with every lower court decision it didn't like? I mean seriously. Think about it.
The court's decision should be final unless the process was improper (which is why the appeals failed to establish a basis) regardless of whether it was a good decision or you or I agree or disagree with it.
Jeff Jacoby got closer to the reality of the situation in his essay: Terri Schiavo: Less certaintly, more prayer.
I couldn't say for sure. How is it that so many others can?
I don't agree with the prayer part particularly, but he's correct that we can't know any more from a distance than the local court did. A decision had to be made and it was made by the rules. You can't change the rules after the game -- I think the Republicans said that after the '00 election in Florida.
A decision has to be made about Terri Schiavo, and my head and heart are with those who would ''err on the side of life." But don't count me among the dogmatists. This is one case that calls for less certainty, and more prayer. |
|
|
|
|
|
