If refraining from certain types of unscrupulous maneuvers would mean liberals would likewise do so, then it would be virtuous to do so. But to allow liberals to exercise them without reprisal is to encourage them. The only effective deterrence in such cases is fear of retaliation.
Suppose the U.S. were to declare that it would never use nuclear weapons under any circumstances. Would such a declaration make it more or less likely that nukes would get used?
This woman will die. You want to relate her death to a silly filibuster in SC? Political pandering? Unbelievable....
"The question is, are they also ready to to accept that if this is a matter of Federal rather that state jurisdiction the logic of the argument suggests that so are a lot of other issues (as various "medical marijuana" and "gay marriage") many here would prefer to see decided at the state level."
First of all, the issue of “gay marriage” could be decided by a state legislature or by the Congress.
The issue of whether a person can be deprived of life without due process of law has ALREADY been decided by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The answer is “NO!”
The Congress can act to investigate any circumstances where a person’s fundamental rights might be threatened.
They can issue subpoenas and require parties to appear before them as part of their investigation.
This is a limited power, and in my opinion, it is entirely appropriate in this case.
There is grave doubt that Terri has been given due process here by the state trial judge.
Her federal rights to life, due process, and equal protection under the 5th and 14th Amendments are paramount, and the Congress has a perfect right to intervene to protect them.