Month: March 2005

A new poll from CBS News says the people are not pleased with congressional meddling with Schiavo:

An overwhelming 82 percent of the public believes the Congress and President should stay out of the matter.

Just 13 percent of those polled think Congress intervened in the case out of concern for Schiavo, while 74 percent think it was all about politics. Of those polled, 66 percent said the tube should not be inserted compared to 27 percent who want it restored. The issue has generated strong feelings, with 78 percent of those polled — wheter for either side of the issue — saying they have strong feelings.

Public approval of Congress has suffered as a result; at 34 percent, it is the lowest it has been since 1997, dropping from 41 percent last month. Now at 43 percent, President Bush’s approval rating is also lower than it was a month ago.

One fallout of the President’s new dismal approval rating is the certain death of this Social Security reform proposals. But what’s more important, retirement security for all Americans, or a few more gallons of liquid for one person in a persistent vegetative state?

Bob Barr’s not pleased:

“To simply say that the ‘culture of life,’ or whatever you call it means that we don’t have to pay attention to the principles of federalism or separation of powers is certainly not a conservative viewpoint,” said Barr.

And neither is John Warner:

“That the misfortunes of life vested upon Theresa Marie Schiavo are a human tragedy, no one can deny. I said my prayers, as did many Americans, as we attended religious services this Palm Sunday,” he said. “I believe it unwise for the Congress to take from the state of Florida its constitutional responsibility to resolve the issues in this case.”

Amen to that, brothers and sisters.

Dahlia Lithwick:

The rule of law in this country holds that this is a federalist system — in which private domestic matters are litigated in state, not federal courts. The rule of law has long provided that such domestic decisions are generally made by competent spouses, as opposed to parents, elected officials, popular referendum, or the demands of Randall Terry. The rule of law also requires a fundamental separation of powers — in which legislatures do not override final, binding court decisions solely because the outcome is not the one they like. The rule of law requires comity between state and federal courts — wherein each respects and upholds the jurisdiction and authority of the other. The rule of law requires that we look skeptically at legislation aimed at mucking around with just one life to the exclusion of any and all similarly situated individuals.

And what is the overwhelming constitutional value that supersedes each of these centuries-old legal notions? Evidently, Congress has a secret, super-textual constitutional role as the nation’s caped crusaders, its members authorized to leap into phone booths around the world and fly back to Washington in a single bound whenever the “culture of life” is in peril. Republicans acknowledged this weekend that their views on “the sanctity of life” trump even their convictions about federalism. Or, as Tom DeLay put it, when asked how he reconciles this bill with conservative calls to keep the federal government out of state matters, “We, as Congress, have every right to make sure that the constitutional rights of Terri Schiavo are protected, and that’s what we’re doing.”…

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.

Amen.

Regarding the Schindlers’ request for an injunction, the AP reports the judge isn’t sold:

But the judge told Gibbs that he still wasn’t completely sold on the argument. “I think you’d be hardpressed to convince me that you have a substantial likelihood” of the parents’ lawsuit succeeding, Whittemore said.

You don’t always get that miracle no matter how hard you pray, people.

Click on this link to see how you voted on the Schiavo bill. Party affiliations are indicated by type face, Dems in italic, Reeps in Roman.

So the Congress has jumped about the loony train and passed a bill grabbing jurisdiction on the Schiavo case away from the State of Florida, a move applauded by that state’s fool of a governor, Jeb Bush:

Gov. Bush, praised the actions of Congress. “We in government have a duty to protect the weak, disabled and vulnerable,” he said in a statement Monday. “I appreciate the efforts of state and federal lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who have taken this duty to heart.”

I find it amusing, now, that Congress’ concern for the weak and the vulnerable wasn’t strong enough to extend unemployment benefits at the pit of the recent (some would say “Bush”) recession.

This law proves that it’s dangerous to allow any one political party to take control of too much of the government. For the sake of the country, the Democrats need to organize and take back the House of Representatives in 2006, and I’m going to do what I can to make that happen, beginning with the removal of my Bush/Cheney 2004 bumper sticker.

Check Joe Gandelman’s post on prospects for the mid-term elections. He cites Bob (“Prince of Darkness”) Novak, to wit:

Analysts at the Republican National Committee have sent this warning to the House of Representatives: The party is in danger of losing 25 seats in the 2006 election and, therefore, of losing control of the House for the first time since the 1994 election.

It looks good for America.

A cogent analysis of the past week, from Andrew Sullivan:

CONSERVATISM COME UNDONE: So it is now the federal government’s role to micro-manage baseball and to prevent a single Florida woman who is trapped in a living hell from dying with dignity. We’re getting to the point when conservatism has become a political philosophy that believes that government – at the most distant level – has the right to intervene in almost anything to achieve the right solution. Today’s conservatism is becoming yesterday’s liberalism.

Indeed.

Dr. Krauthammer reflects on the the state of the Middle East:

As an advocate of that notion of democratic revolution, I am not surprised that the opposing view was proved false. I am surprised only that it was proved false so quickly — that the voters in Iraq, the people of Lebanon, the women of Kuwait, the followers of Ayman Nour in Egypt would rise so eagerly at the first breaking of the dictatorial “stability” they had so long experienced (and we had so long supported) to claim their democratic rights.

This amazing display has prompted a wave of soul-searching. When a Le Monde editorial titled “Arab Spring” acknowledges “the merit of George W. Bush,” when the cover headline of London’s The Independent is “Was Bush Right After All?” and when a column in Der Spiegel asks “Could George W. Bush Be Right?” you know that something radical has happened.

It is not just that the ramparts of Euro-snobbery have been breached. Iraq and, more broadly, the Bush doctrine were always more than a purely intellectual matter. The left’s patronizing, quasi-colonialist view of the benighted Arabs was not just analytically incorrect. It was morally bankrupt, too.

Mass demonstrations in support of emerging Arab democracies would be appropriate indeed.