Posted on 10/30/2003 5:49:43 AM PST by SJackson
Edited on 10/30/2003 7:52:42 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The quest for utopian socialism has its twists and turns. A woman has the right to choose when it comes to the life of her unborn child. But, in the exception-ridden liberal conscience, choice regarding her own life belongs to her husband. Husbands have no say in wives' abortions, but, according to those wacky Florida courts, they have the final say on their wives' lives. In the case of 39-year-old Terri Schiavo, her husband, complete with mistress and their children, wants her starved to death. A Florida court, finally halted in its unrighteous dominion by another Bush, ordered it so. Liberals oppose the death penalty for criminals, but not for innocents.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God.
Hearsay evidence from the husband, his brother, and sister-in-law was about it. With the family in disagreement it was the judge's discretion to decide and he went with the guardian's word. Rubberstamping a guardian's decision is routine in many courts and not necessarily an indication of any deep soul-searching on the part of the judge in weighing the "evidence".
Many people think it's not the best law which allows a guardian to take the life of his ward and benefit handsomely if he does take that life.
It's true that working through channels to change bad laws is ideal but in this case a woman's life hung in the balance. There will be plenty of time to hammer out better laws in the legislature but Terri was running out of time. Better to err on the side of her life and in the meantime the public can become part of the legislative deliberation on how to improve the law.
This reminds me of the gospel where the question was raised if it were lawful to rescue an ox from a pit on the Sabbath. Christ indicated it was better to err on the side of life over the law. That seems like a good guideline here.
I'm reminded of a famous case in New York involving a young man who was convicted of second-degree murder for poisoning his grandfather for the inheritance money. There was nothing in the law that said murderers couldn't inherit, and the young murderer, Elmer E. Palmer, figured the worst case scenario was he would serve a 20-year sentence before enjoying the fruits of his crime. Although the statute was silent on the question of beneficiaries murdering their testators, Justice Benjamin Cardozo decided against Palmer on the principle that no one should profit by their wrongdoing.
The facts of the Schiavo case, like those in Riggs v. Palmer, highlight the deficiencies of a positivist theory of law such as Mr. Palmer's attorneys argued in that case and that you are arguing here. A legal positivist holds that law is nothing more than the collection of rules and obligations set forth in the books. A positivist rejects the idea of moral restraints on validity of laws and would say that Justice Cardozo impermissibly exceeded his authority, either by legislating from the bench or by an unwarranted exercise of judicial discretion.
The New York law on wills in 1882 did not contemplate the possibility of a beneficiary murdering his testator either to inherit sooner or to prevent a change in the will. Similarly the law of Florida governing appointment of guardians and the legal rights and obligations of spouses did not contemplate a legal guardian with financial and other conflicts of interest acting in bad faith.
To adhere to the letter of the law in circumstances not contemplated when the law was written certainly promotes predictability of results in judicial decisions. The question is whether the object of the law is primarily to reach predictable results, as positivists would hold, or to achieve justice, as Cardozo believed.
Cardozo refused to blindly follow the letter of the law if it meant violating its spirit by creating an injustice. A legal positivist denies the existence of such a thing as a spirit of the law. He would therefore allow the murderer to inherit because the 1882 law in question made no distinction between murderers and other beneficiaries.
What a difference a generation makes. When I went to law school, my first-year classmates' reaction to this case was one of surprise. We weren't surprised that Cardozo ruled the way he did. We were surprised that Palmer and his attorney were brazen enough to argue he was entitled to inherit the estate from a relative he poisoned, and that a judge like Cardozo actually took the argument seriously instead of throwing the scoundrel and his shyster out of the courtroom.
I find myself wondering the same thing today.
Christ indicated it was better to err on the side of life over the law. That seems like a good guideline here.
Nice point!
That's even better than George Costanza's opposite principle. :)
This essay was beautiful.
~~~
Matthew taught me the real worth of life cannot be measured, quantified or predicted in advance. He needed help from a lot of people to live a modest life, but the time, energy and sacrifice freely given by so many perfect strangers on his behalf, he repaid it all ten times over with an astonishing capacity for love that flowed freely from his wounds.
This one was awesome.
Thank you, William.
(Hugs)
Hey I resemble that remark. ;-)
BUMP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.