A few additional comments on the Terri Schiavo saga. As noted, I had a basic belief that the system was perverted in this case, but a deeper examination of the history of the case would be productive as well. If one follows the links provided, there are various blogs that do just that -- and do so more expertly than my humble efforts can offer.
The matter has obviously been greatly debated, but as unsurprisingly, there has been some misunderstandings. One that troubles me is the complaint that it is silly (see, e.g., Dahlia Lithwick over in Slate, and fray responses) to suggest Congress violated the "rule of law" or was particularly hypocritical and/or abusive of its powers. The confusion arose, looking at some of the comments, from the difference between usual no bottom of the well congressional power and singling out one case of thousands for unique treatment.
As I myself noted to one critic, this is not a matter of Congress setting up a national Living Will Law, something largely ill advised. It is favoring one specific family for special treatment in this area. If this is not a violation of the "rule of law," what exactly is? The rule of law concerns consistent application of legal principles in a fair way without special favors or arbitrary action. Congress surely favors certain groups and sometimes individuals, especially when formulating tax policy. It does not single out one particular family and ongoing lawsuit when setting forth jurisdiction rules for the federal courts. In other words, Congress is no angel, but this is a particularly devilish act.
Others are annoyed by the vitriol some people put forth in response to Congress' actions. This is equally annoying. It is quite human, and proper, to respond to blatant hypocrisy in such a way, especially if it is particularly crude use of human trauma. Surely, glorified spittle will be of little value, but quite often the passionate responses put forth some rather good arguments. I'm fully appreciative of fully calm and rational denunciations of the hypocrisy, but for each there is a place.
Finally, the fact that the federal judge (unsurprisingly) rejected the petition to overturn the decisions of the state courts suggest just how ridiculous the whole affair truly was.* Some might consider it not a big deal, and perhaps the Democrats felt it was the best they can hope for -- a singular act that probably would not have much effect.
The problem is twofold. First, poll data suggests that the people would have supported a principled rejection of the Republicans' push for this legislation. Yet again, principled action might have been the best path for the Democratic Party. And, second, it remains a totally unprincipled and cynical act. The harm of such legislation is not limited to its individual reach -- it poisons the well in a greater and more profound way.
The fact it had so little effect in that fashion makes it all the more distressing. Terry Schiavo has been misused and the door is left open to yet another such abuse -- perhaps with much greater effect -- in the future.
---
* One argument offered concerned protecting her right to practice religion. This puts the cart before the horse because the whole issue is to determine her wishes, including her moral beliefs. More troubling, some mention was made of her Roman Catholicism, which would complicate the matter.
How can one assume that even regular church goers accept all aspects of the faith? A good third, by some accounts, do not support its stance on abortion. This is a glaring case of the dangers of relying on parents' sayso, especially when how one is raised is often a rather imperfect view of one's current beliefs (the rule surely applies to me in certain respects).