Saturday, March 26, 2005

I can't get behind this. As I've documented, a lot of the reaction calling the Palm Sunday Compromise an affront to the rule of law and seaparation of powers was grandstanding. But if either Gov. or Pres. Bush were to intervene in this way, it would truly be an affront to the rule of law. I think it would be very hard for any social conservative to be elected again -- the charges of "theocracy" would have some teeth to them.

Jeb and Gerorge Bush were elected governor and president, not king. They have no more right to take custody of Terri Schiavo than any of us. In other words, if it's the right thing for them to do to intervene in this way, then it's right thing for us to put together a mob of our own and forcefully take custody. And I'm not sure it is.


One more hypothetical -- imagine that in every gubernatorial and presidential election in which they ran, Michael Schiavo had cast two votes, including a vote for the Bush brothers on Terri Schiavo's behalf, since they had had some conversations in the past in which Terri had expressed admiration for the Bush family, and he was sure that she would want to vote for them. Let's say news of this broke out around mid-November, 2000.

Do you think Michael Schiavo would be portrayed as a loving husband dutifully carrying out the wishes of his wife? Would we be so quick to wave off the second family he had started? Would it never be referred to as "adultery" without scare quotes? Would a series of judicial decisions upholding this double voting be held in regard, rather than an example of political corruption? Would a congressional action establishing federal jurisdiction over this matter be called an affront to states' rights, federalism, the separation of powers, and the rule of law?

I kind of don't think so.

And this would be over a single vote in a hotly contested election. But when it's this woman's very life, we pretend it's all OK.
Post a Comment