Since Jonathan Turley wrote the article for the LA Times, we can only post excerpts:
The framers of the Constitution understood that the test of any democratic system would be its ability to restrain, not satisfy, the majority. Much of the Constitution is designed to combat the evil of majoritarian terror -- the tyranny of the majority over those who are unpopular or underrepresented. For this reason, the framers rejected a pure democratic model and instead embraced the model of a republic containing the doctrine of separation of powers, including an independent judiciary.The Schiavo controversy was anticipated by the framers, who warned of the natural inclination of politicians to intervene in individual cases. James Madison, for instance, criticized state politicians for altering "rights which should have been left to judicial controversy."
How does the evil of the majoritarian terror that presents itself in this case measure up to the evil of the perjured medical testimony at the trial? How does the majoritarian terror exerted in this case to protect Terri's rights measure up to the abandonment and isolation the husband placed this woman in. In his role as guardian of his wife's right's he has demonstrated no commitment to them, but only to his own rights and interests.
You know what-you don't leave a dog in solitary for 12+ years while you're trying to get permission to kill him. The fact is that is just what "the loving husband" Mikey boy did to his wife.
Yes, but that was before the founders realized the judiciary would become a cadre of black-robed tyrants.
Hamilton wrote in the Federalist 78 the judiciary was the least of the branches to be feared, since judges could exercise neither will nor power.
Little did he know of how judges would exercise their will, and actually make law from the bench.
Little did he know of the judicial usurpations that were was to come: Roe v. Wade...Doe v. Bolton...Gratz v. Michigan...Lawrence v. Texas...etc. etc.
SCOTUS did not agree. Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798).